| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 107/08 |
| Hearing date | 2 Feb 2008 |
| Determination date | 24 July 2008 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | M Nutsford ; N McPhail |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Rowe v Vircom EMS Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed dismissed for redundancy with no consideration of redeployment alternatives – Respondent argued redundancy genuine and no alternative positions available at time applicant’s position disestablished – Applicant invited to meeting to discuss restructuring - Applicant proposed return to field installer position as alternative to redundancy – Respondent rejected proposal – Respondent had expression of interest (“EOI”) in securing contract work, potentially requiring field installer positions - Applicant previously undertook field installer position for respondent – Respondent argued had field installation work become available, would not have considered applicant as had no confidence due to health problems – Authority found redundancy part of national downsizing restructuring for financial reasons – Redundancy genuine – Found several days sufficient, not generous, time to prepare for redundancy meeting – Found applicant’s views considered but not accepted by respondent – Found process full and outcome not premeditated – Authority accepted no work of type could redeploy applicant at time position disestablished – Found respondent had genuine concerns about applicant’s health in field installer positions – However, found respondent not open with applicant about EOI and failed to inquire about health – Found would not have avoided redundancy, but re-employment prospect – Found respondent owed applicant duty in good faith to inquire formally into state of health and ability to undertake field work should it later become available – Found as result of failure to disclose EOI and to discuss possibility of work should it be secured, applicant lost chance of redeployment – Found procedure flawed – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – Found grossly inappropriate for respondent to submit untested personal opinion evidence of applicant’s suitability for positions applied for following dismissal – Modest compensation award appropriate - Length of service 7 years - Meter installer |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,200) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4 |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corp Limited v. McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Forest Park (New Zealand) Limited v. Adams [2000] 2 ERNZ 310;NZ Fasteners Ltd v. Thwaites, [2000] 1 ERNZ 739;Polkey v. Dayton Services Limited [1989] ICR 142, 162/3 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 107_08.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |