| Summary |
DISPUTE - Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) instituted review of M�ori Land Court’s operations - Respondents involved in review until MoJ considered potential for conflict of interest - MoJ’s new structure following review involved additional staff and changes to positions - Made decision not to pursue options preferred by respondents - Determined respondents would not be re-confirmed into positions in new structure as considered new positions dissimilar to existing positions - Declined to offer any positions to respondents until advertisement process complete - Dispute whether consistent with respondents’ employment agreements to advertise for what applicant considered new positions or whether respondents should be appointed to their preference of position - Restructuring put on hold until dispute resolved - Respondents purported to file personal grievances by way of counter-claim - Authority did not address claims due to urgency of situation, and matter initially raised as dispute - Employment agreements of first three respondents provided would be notified of intention to disestablish position if position surplus to requirements - Then provided aim was to appoint them to another position not dissimilar to current position and which was suitable to skills and abilities - Fourth respondent’s employment agreement contained a different provision that where position made redundant could be offered new position - Respondents had all applied for new positions - Authority looked at whether respondents should be reconfirmed into positions in new structure by considering whether positions would cease to exist or would continue in substance - Found none of respondents’ positions continued in substance - First respondent’s position effectively split in two - Changes to second, third, and fourth respondents’ positions resulted in reduced responsibilities and loss of management and strategic functions - Respondents’ positions surplus to requirements - Authority found new positions dissimilar to respondents’ current positions for essentially same reasons as found positions did not continue in substance - First three respondents claimed clause in employment agreement required applicant to offer them positions - Authority found language permissive and did not require applicant to offer positions, only once position offered that agreement mandated outcome - However, obligations under employment agreement, and good faith obligations remained - Parties must continue to use process in employment agreement to discuss appropriate solution as process not concluded - Fourth respondent claimed treated inconsistently, and in disparate manner to other affected staff - Issues best dealt with as part of personal grievance claim - Authority declared applicant entitled to continue advertising and recruitment process in respect of new positions - Respondents’ personal grievances remained extant and respondent’s free to progress claims |