| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 25/08 |
| Hearing date | 7 Feb 2008 - 8 Feb 2008 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 05 March 2008 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | S Dalzell ; R Harrison |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Cornish v Scots College Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Redundancy – Applicant both deputy principal (“DP”) of prep school and director of boarding (“DB”) – Applicant provided accommodation at school boarding house with family on full board basis – Respondent decided to implement seven day boarding – Applicant and Headmaster (“Y”) developed crisis plan where students would stay at boarding house during weekend – Applicant already overworked and crisis plan created additional work for staff – Applicant concerned other staff not pulling weight at boarding house yet given reduced teaching responsibilities upon request – Principal of prep school (“P”) not prepared to allow applicant to relinquish one class because felt would distance applicant from day-to-day life of students – Y met with applicant who claimed stressed and unable to cope – Y told applicant present role too big for one person and could be two positions – Upon return from leave applicant confirmed preferred DB position – Y provided applicant with draft job descriptions – Y offered applicant choice to either remain at boarding school as teacher or shift accommodation and remain DP – Neither option suitable to applicant – Y implemented formal restructuring proposal as no resolution through informal process – Y proposed to disestablish applicant’s position and replace with two positions – Applicant provided feedback that could continue in both jobs to high standard – Y considered feedback but decided to continue restructuring – Y required applicant to apply for new positions – Applicant argued consultation process a sham as decision to restructure relayed immediately to staff – Applicant did not initially apply for new positions as believed would be approval of restructuring – Applicant believed entitled to stay in existing position – Applicant applied for new positions on without prejudice basis – Following interviews respondent confirmed applicant best candidate for DP position but better candidate found for DB position – Applicant claimed only interested in DP position because no other choice – Applicant concerned lost substantial benefits that came with DB position – Respondent withdrew offer of DP position following unsuccessful mediation – Following investigation of alternative employment options respondent confirmed applicant’s redundancy – Authority discussed applicability of legal principles in leading judgments on redundancy law – Authority found respondent had good reasons to split applicant’s position into two and acted as reasonable employer – Authority found appropriate to advertise position and not required to offer to applicant as of right – Authority satisfied genuine consultation held with applicant – Dismissal justified – Authority found unfair action by respondent to effectively require personal grievance be linked with applicant’s acceptance of DP position – Authority found breach of good faith by denying applicant opportunity to take up DP position until personal grievance addressed in private – Disadvantage established as applicant pressured to resolve personal grievance – Remedies – Compensation limited to unfair way applicant treated taking into account result would not have been different – $2,500 compensation appropriate – Deputy principal operations & Director of boarding |
| Result | Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660;GN Hale & Son Limited v Wellington Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZLR 1079;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739;Principal of Auckland College of Education v Hagg [1997] ERNZ 116;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825;Van Etten v Board of Trustees of John Paul College unreported, Travis J, 3 April 2000, AC 20/00 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 25_08.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |