| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 110/08 |
| Hearing date | 13 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 30 July 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | F Wall ; P Johnson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Gearry v Armourguard Security Ltd |
| Summary | RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant claimed entitled to redundancy compensation – Respondent argued applicant resigned and position never redundant – Respondent assigned applicant as security guard at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (“RBNZ”) – Respondent offered applicant option of taking redundancy compensation or redeployment when RBNZ closed offices – Applicant chose redeployment to another client (“CPIT”) – CPIT decided to terminate contract for provision of day time security services with respondent and to provide service through own resources – Applicant applied for and offered new security position advertised by CPIT – Respondent told applicant not entitled to redundancy compensation – Applicant formally resigned and conveyed personal grievance – Respondent’s manager (“M”) told applicant not entitled to redundancy compensation because effectively technically redundant – M argued analogous to technical redundancy because although no sale of respondent, applicant offered replacement employment when CPIT contract to provide services withdrawn – Respondent argued sought to retain applicant but CPIT offer better than any respondent could make – Respondent argued no sense not to retain applicant as experienced security guards difficult to obtain – Argued no change in business methods to find applicant surplus to requirements – Respondent argued applicant not employed on site specific basis – Argued changes in contractual requirements meant no guarantee of work in perpetuity at particular site – Authority found employment agreement clear that not entitled to redundancy compensation because in truth no labour surplus – Applicant expected to be offered choice as was when RBNZ offices closed – Authority found difficult to see offer of redundancy compensation when RBNZ contract ended as anything other than ex gratia payment – Authority rejected applicant’s argument not offered employment by respondent when CPIT contract ended – Authority found respondent motivated by commercial imperative not to destabilise continuing relationship with CPIT – Authority found acceptable applicant offered continuity of employment although no specific role referred to – No entitlement to redundancy compensation – Security guard |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 110_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |