| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 235/07 |
| Hearing date | 15 Mar 2007 |
| Determination date | 06 August 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | S Kelly, A Halloran ; A Shaw, A Shakespeare |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Green & Ors v Rendezvous Hotels (NZ) Ltd |
| Other Parties | Grant, Wecke, Liu |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicants (GG, JG, CW and YL) made redundant one week after management rights leased to respondent – As condition of sale, all employees were offered employment on existing terms, and service deemed continuous – Applicants summarily dismissed in meetings as respondent declared HR department redundant – After meetings, applicants given final pay cheques and told to return respondent’s property and leave premises – Respondent advertised HR position – Authority found position advertised same as GG’s role, under different job title, and CW and YL should also have been considered for position – Found respondent knew redundancy was possible but made repeated written and verbal statements that jobs secure – No transparency between accepted need to make costs savings and selection of applicants’ positions for redundancy – In absence of clear trail, respondent unable to establish redundancies genuine – Authority found no consultation or opportunity to comment on redundancy proposal – Found no discussion with applicants about implementation of redundancy process – No adequate notice of dismissal meetings, advice of purpose of meeting or advice of right to have representative– No option to work out notice periods – No written references or certificates of service – No opportunity to farewell co-workers – Process woefully inadequate, without explanation – Redundancies not genuine and not procedurally fair – REMEDIES – GG, JG and CW received one month’s pay in lieu of notice – YL received two weeks pay in lieu of notice – No contributory conduct - GG entitled to statutory three months award for reimbursement of lost wages only – Advertisement of replacement position was hurtful to GG but claim it damaged reputation was speculative – Abrupt dismissal and advertisement of position had significant impact on GG – GG awarded $15,000 compensation for distress and injury - JG secured new position within month of dismissal so did not claim lost wages – JG’s health suffered as result of dismissal – Process in dismissing JG insensitive - JG awarded $12,500 compensation - CW secured new position within month of dismissal so did not claim lost wages – CW deeply affected by dismissal and suffered ill mental and physical health as result – Impact on CW exacerbated by lack of proper process – CW entitled to $15,000 compensation - YL sought lost future benefit of 14 weeks parental leave – Authority found paid parental leave was statutory entitlement, not employment benefit and not employer’s obligation – Gap in legislation meant no statutory protection for employees made redundant before commenced parental leave – YL made reasonable efforts to mitigate loss by applying for 19 jobs since dismissal – YL entitled to three months lost wages – YL suffered considerable negative effects as result of dismissal, amplified by pregnancy and immigrant status – YL entitled to $15,000 compensation - PENALTY – Authority found respondent seriously breached obligations owed to applicants, however evidence fell short of establishing breaches deliberate – No penalty awarded - Training Manager (GG), Security Manager (JG), Human Resources Manager (CW), Human Resources Administrator (YL) |
| Result | First applicant (GG): Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (2 months)($7,284.64) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved;Second applicant (JG): Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,500) ; Costs reserved;Third applicant (CW): Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved;Fourth applicant (YL): Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (3 months)($7.615.44) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A;ERA s123(1)(b);ERA s123(1)(c)(ii);ERA s128(2);Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71V;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71L9(2) |
| Cases Cited | Phipps v NZ Fishing Industry Board [1996] 1 ERNZ 195;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825;Staykov v Cap Gemini Ernst & Young New Zealand Limited, Unreported, Travis J, 20 Apr 2005, AC 18/05;Thompson v Gaze Commercial Limited, Unreported, L Robinson, 12 Oct 2005, AA 411/05 |
| Number of Pages | 25 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 235_07.pdf [pdf 81 KB] |