Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 140/07
Hearing date 24 May 2007
Determination date 19 November 2007
Member P Montgomery
Representation S Wilson ; D McLeod
Location Timaru
Parties Kessick v Canterbury Wool Scourers Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - When business sold to respondent, applicant accepted role doing same work on provision may be amended in future - Advised of restructuring and invited to discuss proposal to create new, expanded position and disestablish current role - Applicant attempted to clarify proposal but put off by manager - Alleged interview merely “going through the motions” - Applicant unsuccessful and given notice - Failure to provide job description for initial role breached s65 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Breach significant as unclear whether initial role substantially different from new position - Respondent in no position to assert positions substantially different - Issues could have been addressed before interview, but manager refused to provide clarification - Applicant’s evidence manager assured him would still have job with respondent accepted - Failure to consult and behaviour when setting up interview lacked good faith - Procedure seriously deficient - Heightened responsibility when considering termination of long standing employee unlikely to find comparable employment due to age and industry - Also conflict of interest may have influenced objectivity of selection process - External candidate proposed by member of interview panel - No genuine pursuit of alternative employment - Redundancy not genuine - Dismissal unjustified - Production co-ordinator
Result Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (8 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($15,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s65;ERA s103A
Cases Cited New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites 2 NZLR [2000]
Number of Pages 14
PDF File Link: ca 140_07.pdf [pdf 56 KB]