| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 124/08 |
| Hearing date | 9 May 2007 - 22 Aug 2007 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 01 April 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | A Schaaf ; R Pool |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taione v Auckland Auto Clinic Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy unjustified – Respondent argued redundancy substantially justified – Respondent’s manager (“R”) told applicant loss of authority to issue warrants of fitness (“WoF”) had implications for employment – Authority found no agreement applicant should leave – However, found applicant agreed to consider situation and contact R – Found R told applicant could not afford to pay wages because WoF authority suspended – Applicant concluded had been dismissed – Authority found sending away amounted to dismissal – Found although sending away qualified as “until further notice” still deprived applicant entitlement to continuing indefinite employment – Respondent argued no longer required warrant of fitness inspector which was two thirds of applicant’s work – Found respondent’s assessment of proportion of applicant’s warrant of fitness work not readily apparent – Found fair and reasonable employer would have conducted appropriate enquiries before asking applicant to leave – Found respondent did not consider whether applicant’s employment could be sustained – Found while respondent argued applicant’s poor performance and misconduct fact remained dismissal was for redundancy – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Found applicant accepted suspension of respondent’s authority to issue warrant’s result of own complaint – Found applicant’s actions directly causative of termination as obvious would be affected directly by respondent’s loss of authority – Authority found would be wrong and contrary to justice to regard applicant raising unlawful behaviour as contributory conduct – Found R did not pursue serious misconduct evidence formally with applicant and elected only to pursue redundancy situation – Found not certain applicant would have been made redundant if fair and sensitive process followed – Found $6,000 compensation appropriate – Found given witness evidence $10,000 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – Senior mechanic |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($10,000) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 124_08.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |