| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 66/08 |
| Hearing date | 17 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 28 February 2008 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | C Johnson (in person) ; R Larmer |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Johnson v Gilligan Business School Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy substantially and procedurally unjustified – No dispute applicant’s employment ended by dismissal – Authority noted could only look at cost saving steps taken by respondent to be satisfied respondent exercised business judgement and no ulterior motives – Respondent a small business run by husband and wife with applicant only full time employee – Applicant accepted dismissal no reflection on performance – Authority found objective of applicant’s termination to save costs – Authority found several options for trying to save costs but ultimately decision with respondent as to preferable option – Found respondent’s decision understandable as evident business declining despite efforts of applicant – Authority found applicant adequately consulted – Applicant’s suggestion to reduce number of working days considered but ultimately rejected – Authority found given small operating budget significant financial strain when applicant employed – Respondent raised prospect of redundancy followed by personal letter which gave opportunity for comment – Authority found respondent carefully considered applicants view and made decision to dismiss – Found respondent’s approach to redundancy fair and reasonable – Applicant also claimed respondent breached good faith provisions by failing to provide information used to make dismissal decision – Authority satisfied nothing of substance withheld from applicant – Authority found no obligation on respondent to give prior notice to applicant before raising possibility of redundancy – Applicant produced documents suggesting redundancy be delayed – Authority found documents had no bearing on case as not before respondent when redundancy decision made – Found dismissal compelled by genuine commercial reasons and implemented in fair manner given limited scale of business and resources – Dismissal justified - Sales and Marketing Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No costs awarded |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki and Nelson Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079;Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 66_08.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |