| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 115/08 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jan 2008 |
| Determination date | 28 March 2008 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | K Muir ; L Campbell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v Just Water New Zealand |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Prior to applicant’s appointment respondent’s organisational structure provided for two employees “B” and “S” to lead company – Respondent expected either B or S to demonstrate ability to be appointed general manager (“GM”) – Applicant took on GM position after structure failed – Respondent also wanted applicant to take on S’s national sales manager (“NSM”) function – Applicant made redundant after 5 months – Applicant argued at time of dismissal did not know position not genuinely redundant – Authority found common ground grievance not raised within 90 days of dismissal, however, applicant fixed with knowledge that believed unjustifiably dismissed at later date – Authority satisfied personal grievance raised in time – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Authority found applicant employed to replace two positions and already planed to put S into alternative position – Respondent’s CEO (“F”) argued concerned about respondent’s financial situation and remedy required – Board meeting held where staff concerns about applicant aired and F asked to provide “coaching ” to applicant – Authority found F’s “coaching” fell short of obligation to provide training and instruction to applicant – Authority found no indication in F’s report or minutes of board meeting that restructuring imminent or applicant’s position unsustainable – F told applicant GM position to be disestablished and sought ideas from applicant to retain employment – Authority found F did not discuss with applicant that proposal rejected – After further meeting applicant made redundant – Authority accepted respondent facing genuine commercial pressure, however not automatic reason for applicant’s redundancy – Authority found S appointed to applicants GM and NSM roles after applicant’s dismissal – Applicant claimed had not yet had time to take on NSM function – Authority found redundancy not for financial performance or genuine commercial reasons – Found respondent motivated to dismiss applicant because applicant had not taken on NSM function early enough – Authority satisfied F never discussed with applicant perception that applicant not taking over NSM function – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Applicant claimed nine months lost wages – Authority saw no reason to exercise discretion to award more than 3 months lost wages – Applicant entitled to $7300 lost wages – Authority found applicant distressed by knowledge that S put into applicant’s role immediately after dismissal – Compensation of $7000 appropriate – Applicant also entitled to $4500 compensation for loss of company vehicle – General manager/Sales manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,300); Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,500) ; Compensation for lost benefit (Company car) ($7,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(a);ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s114;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;McCulloch v NZ Fire Services Commission [1998] 3 ERNZ 378;Nelson Aero Club Inc v Palmer unreported, Shaw J, 7 March 2000, WC 10A/00;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] 1 ERNZ 739;Savage v Unlimited Architecture Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 40;Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825;Wyatt v Simpson Grierson (A Partnership) unreported, Couch J, 20 July 2007, AC 45/07;Wyatt & Tippins v Trust Bank New Zealand Limited unreported, Travis J, 4 May 1994, AEC 19/94 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 115_08.pdf [pdf 57 KB] |