| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 86/08 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jan 2008 |
| Determination date | 11 March 2008 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | A Jackson ; A Holgate |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wright v Hevila Pak Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Abandonment – Applicant claimed redundancy engineered to get rid of applicant due to conflict between applicant and chairman of board of directors (“F”) - Respondent argued applicant abandoned employment – F advised staff in individual letters that business not performing well, was reviewing operations and would arrange individual meetings – Applicant advised F did not wish to attend meeting – Applicant attended later meeting with F to discuss outcome of review – F advised would recommend at AGM that applicant’s position be made redundant – Applicant responded “good luck” – Applicant present at AGM where meeting resolved to recommend to respondent’s board that applicant’s position redundant – Applicant asked if that meant he no longer had job – F replied “probably” but another shareholder replied not final decision – Applicant began preparing to leave workplace – Authority preferred F’s evidence that F explained that applicant still employee and expected to carry out work until board made decision on redundancy – Applicant left, not attending final meeting when decision to discontinue position finally made - Authority had reservations about F’s approach, but accepted valid reasons for considering future of applicant’s position – Found applicant’s response to F’s attempted review unwise and not in own best interests – Found outcome of AGM not applicant’s dismissal - Position remained until directors resolved to discontinue it – Found unclear what final outcome would have been because applicant pre-empted any action and consultation about future employment options – Found departure too premature to allow finding that treatment was such that applicant entitled to reach conclusion that was dismissed – Applicant’s departure pre-empted any termination that may have been imposed after director’s meeting and subsequent consultation with applicant – Therefore no issue of justification arose – No dismissal - BREACH OF CONTRACT - PENALTY - Counterclaim – Respondent argued applicant breached employment agreement (“EA”) by failing to give reasonable notice period and carry out duties while EA remained in force – Respondent sought penalty for breaches – Authority found applicant breached EA in failing to provide notice of termination as was obliged to – Authority declined to exercise discretion to award penalty - Found applicant already penalised by losing employment - Penalty declined - Operations manager |
| Result | Application dismissed (dismissal) ; Application granted (breach of contract)(counterclaim) ; Application dismissed (penalty)(counterclaim) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Christchurch Golf Club Inc v Wood (unreported, Judge Shaw, 22 September 1999, CC 28/99);Wood v Christchurch Golf Club Inc [2000] 1 ERNZ 756 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 86_08.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |