| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 96/08 |
| Hearing date | 30 Oct 2007 |
| Determination date | 17 March 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Davison v HP Packaging (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy – Extensive conflicts in evidence as to circumstances of dismissal – Authority found applicant not told at start of first meeting that redundant, but that redundancy raised as issue – At second meeting, parties discussed alternative options to redundancy, including alternative position – Further communications followed – Respondent sent dismissal letter – Authority found dire position suggested by fact 60 employees redundant in 18 months prior to applicant’s dismissal – Found respondent began restructuring when purchased business – Authority accepted business efficiency required restructuring – Respondent argued all staff put on notice of large scale redundancies – Authority found full and real consultation critical aspect of good faith – Authority found consultation flawed as review of applicant’s area not specifically put to applicant, applicant given insufficient notice of first meeting and not advised of salary of alternative position in sufficient time to consider options – Authority accepted five positions in applicant’s area genuinely redundant – Authority found respondent did not sufficiently express to applicant precise justification for disestablishing applicant’s position as opposed to any other from applicant’s area – No evidence to Authority of reason applicant chosen or of objective selection criteria or selection process leading to applicant’s selection for redundancy - Authority found restructuring genuine, but not persuaded applicant’s particular employment redundant relative to other positions in area – Position not genuinely redundant – Dismissal unjustified - REMEDIES – Applicant awarded lost wages from date of termination until found new employment – Applicant entitled to compensation for effects of unlawful termination, not for loss of job itself – Authority considered length of service with respondent and predecessor twenty years and that was only job applicant had since leaving school – Also exacerbated by dismissal during Christmas season and as applicant had large family and pregnant wife – Single stage process engineer |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($22,129.42)(17 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($9,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)C;ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 96_08.pdf [pdf 51 KB] |