| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 35/08 |
| Hearing date | 13 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 01 April 2008 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | R Jamieson ; G Walker |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Watson v Adecco Personnel Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Chief operating officer (“D”) evaluated applicant’s role - D advised applicant full time position not necessary – D held series of meeting about alternative positions – D did not raise word “redundancy” until late in series of meetings - Applicant made redundant – Applicant’s successor on fixed term agreement and different salary but same terms and hours of work – Authority found respondent had reason to change arrangement due to slow periods in applicant’s employment – Found D informed applicant no position available before giving opportunity for input and comment on D’s conclusion that applicant’s role not full time – Fair and reasonable employer would have consulted before reaching decision – Found subsequent meetings sufficient consultation if was redundancy – Authority found, however, focus centred on removing applicant from role instead of consulting on changes to terms and conditions on remaining position – Found although applicant and another member of management discussed contracting, D responsible for offering applicant fixed term contracting position – Applicant gobsmacked when redundancy raised – Authority found despite emails saying full time position to go and suggesting alternative positions, D failed to put applicant on notice of possibility of redundancy – Rejected respondent’s argument applicant should have inferred possibility of redundancy from conversations – Fair and reasonable employer would have been explicit, open and transparent – Authority accepted applicant’s evidence that applicant required to cover receptionist role for subsequent low period – Found respondent’s actions smothered applicant’s right to pursue dispute and disempowered applicant in reorganisation process – Found redundancy not genuine as position not superfluous – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Authority rejected applicant’s claim for penalty for respondent’s failure to include redundancy provision in employment agreement – Applicant claimed penalty for breach of employment agreement for respondent varying terms and conditions of employment due change to receptionist role – Authority found breach not wilful or deliberate and personal grievance would sufficiently address remedies – No contributory conduct – Authority found had insufficient details to order reimbursement of lost wages so ordered parties to negotiate sum – Found applicant had senior position for short time and shocked when made redundant - $8,000 compensation appropriate - Accounts manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages reserved ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki and Nelson Caretakers etc IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 35_08.pdf [pdf 44 KB] |