| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 65/08 |
| Hearing date | 20 Feb 2008 |
| Determination date | 12 May 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | I Thompson ; P James |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hunt and Ors v Christchurch & Canterbury Marketing Ltd |
| Other Parties | Crooks, Gunn, Hunt, Jackson |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicants claimed given letter informing them business sold and therefore redundant - No advance notice of nature of meeting - Applicants unable to get advice or prepare - No consultation or opportunity for input into disestablishment process - Respondent claimed unable to advise applicants earlier due to commercial sensitivities - Conversely, also submitted applicants should have known of sale as one of them (“KH”) was potential purchaser - Obligation to employees took precedence over commercial sensitivities - Could have informed applicants of discussions without prejudicing third parties - KH behaved responsibly and had not informed co-workers of negotiations - KH’s knowledge did not excuse respondent from obligation to advise staff, including him, in timely way of potential redundancies - KH not to be treated differently from other applicants - No fair and proper process - Dismissals unjustified - Remedies - Matter referred back to parties’ to agree on entitlements - Leave reserved to return to Authority on issue of remedies - Submission applicants contributed to grievances by not engaging with offers of redeployment or applying for new positions not accepted given short timeframe imposed by respondent - Also question of whether new positions involved significant pay cut - Contribution not an issue for parties to take into account - Respondent’s breach of good faith dealt with in context of personal grievance - PENALTY - Applicants also claimed employment agreements did not meet statutory requirements - Respondent had proposed new agreements to remedy defaults but failed to properly engage staff - Not appropriate to impose new terms on applicants, even when intent was to meet statutory obligations - However, intent meant penalty not appropriate |
| Result | Application granted (dismissal) ; Quantum of remedies to be determined ; Orders accordingly ; Application dismissed (penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 65_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |