| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 35/08 |
| Hearing date | 17 Dec 2007 |
| Determination date | 08 February 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | R Pool ; C Patterson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Organ v Integral Technology Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed misled by respondent as to viability of position and claimed redundancy not genuine or fair – Respondent argued redundancy genuine but conceded flaws in process – Respondent argued as redundancy for genuine reasons lost wages not due to applicant and compensation to be limited to $5000 – Authority to investigate whether respondent’s decision made genuinely and whether acted fairly in making decision – Authority found not to substitute own judgment for respondent’s on whether genuine reasons for redundancy – Authority observed employer obligated to consult on redundancy and implement decision in fair and sensitive way – Applicant claimed when persuaded to change from management to support position, respondent had already planned to disestablish support position – Also claimed deliberately misled by respondent that restructuring would leave applicant with “safest job in the company” – Applicant claimed informally told position may be redundant but respondent failed to formally inform of prospect or have proper consultation – Authority did not accept pre-conceived plan to make applicant redundant – Failure of restructuring to produce financial results desired did not mean redundancy not for genuine reasons – Respondent concluded applicant’s position no longer sustainable and manager charged with responsibility of discussing redundancy with applicant – Applicant called to “heads up” meeting with manager and told position redundant – Respondent invited applicant to think about options over weekend and attend meeting on Monday to discuss – Respondent accepted “heads up” meeting unjustified and applicant not properly consulted about prospect of redundancy – Authority found respondent did not fully explore whether could have arranged additional work for applicant’s role – Authority found respondent placed onus on applicant to suggest where else could work rather than both parties discussing whether redeployment options or additional work available – Authority accepted that parties agreed applicant to be paid two months salary and outstanding commission but not redundancy compensation – Applicant contacted respondent when only part of notice and commission paid – Respondent asked applicant to complete full and final settlement form – When applicant refused to complete form final payments withheld by respondent – At investigation meeting respondent changed position and made payments – Authority found while process of being laid off inevitably unpleasant, actions of respondent neither fair or sensitive – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority found applicant’s contributory conduct ten percent for failing to take up respondent’s offer of counselling or career guidance – $6300 compensation appropriate – Technical sales support |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,300) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(4);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] 1 ERNZ 660;GNH Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers and Cleaners Union [1990] 2 NZILR 1079;Russell Harris v Charter Trucks Limited unreported Couch J, 11 September 2007, CC16/07;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 (EC) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 35_08.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |