| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 155/08 |
| Hearing date | 19 Dec 2007 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2008 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | D Hayes ; S Hood |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Maryniak v Waikato Institute of Technology |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Respondent argued applicant justifiably dismissed when position disestablished – Respondent’s CEO wrote to all employees stating organisation wide review of respondent’s operations and structures to be conducted – Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit advised respondent that concerned about high level of staffing costs – Authority found employees advised necessary to make staffing reductions – Applicant received memo from manager advising team being reviewed and formal consultation process to begin – Applicant met with manager and provided with proposal to disestablish applicant’s team – Authority found proposal outlined how applicant’s services would be provided in future through outsourcing – Authority found applicant invited to provide submissions on proposals – Respondent provided further information on proposal upon applicant’s request, however, no detailed business plan provided – Respondent told applicant told all submissions considered and invited to meeting with manager – Respondent wrote to applicant communicating dismissal and decision to disestablish team when applicant failed to attend meeting – Authority found fact applicant on leave from workplace after injury impacted on considerations of alternatives to redundancy – Authority found redundancy notification requirements found in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Authority discussed requirement for consultation and found consultation mandatory considering decision in Aberhart – Applicant argued Authority should accept applicant’s evidence without question because witness evidence in respect of consultative meetings not led by respondent – Authority found personnel involved had moved on and applicant sought to be beneficiary of own delay in lodging grievance – Authority found genuine reasons for redundancy – Found improvements in technology meant more efficient to deliver respondent’s services without applicant’s team – Found applicant treated fairly in management of redundancy – Authority noted applicant put undue influence on obtaining the views of service users during consultation process – Authority found respondent’s approach to consultation principled and reasonable – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that respondent predetermined redundancy – Authority also found due to injury applicant never fit to resume normal duties – Dismissal justified – Technical producer educational media services |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s123(1)(c)(i);ERA Part 6A;ERA s103A;ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c) |
| Cases Cited | Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825;Cammish v Parliamentary Services [1996] 1 ERNZ 404;Communication & Energy Workers Union Inc v Telecom NZ Ltd [1993];2 ERNZ 429;GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki and Nelson Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 155_08.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |