| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 156/07 |
| Hearing date | 15 Nov 2007 |
| Determination date | 29 November 2007 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | A Hughes ; D Mitchell |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Johnson v Salamander Enterprises Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant claimed should have been made redundant when respondent transferred business to new location - Respondent intended to retain all staff - Gave notice and paid retention payments to staff who relocated - Applicant did not want to relocate and sought to have position declared redundant - would then be entitled to redundancy payment - Contended extra travelling time and associated expense unreasonable in his circumstances - Extra distance of 80km not unreasonable in its own right, and extra 2 hours of commuting not unreasonable burden in general - Extra costs at level not unusual for commuters - Although highly inconvenient for applicant, no special circumstances relating to health or family differentiated him from average person - However, applicant did not have access to vehicle and unreasonable to expect him to acquire one - Also, commute home affected by rush hour traffic - Finely balanced, but due to personal circumstances reality of new commute was such that it was not reasonable to expect applicant to work at new premises - Position in effect made redundant - Issue of compliance reserved if necessary |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | AMI Insurance v Kirk [1999] 1 ERNZ 301;Hamilton v Banks Shoe Co Ltd [1998] 3 ERNZ 1139;NZ Printing IUOW v Sigma Print Ltd [1979] ACJ 279;Tuilaepa v Auckland Area Health Board [1992] 2 ERNZ 114;Westpac Banking Corporation v Money [2004] 1 ERNZ 576 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 156_07.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |