| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 100/08 |
| Hearing date | 23 Jul 2008 |
| Determination date | 29 July 2008 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | J R Sumner ; S Hornsby-Geluk, B Fleming |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Stuart v The Chief Executive, Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant made redundant following restructuring – Authority found although other employees experienced changes to roles applicant only employee to lose job – Applicant sought reinstatement to disestablished role – Alternatively claimed should have been reassigned to substantially similar restructured role and sought reinstatement to that role – Determination only dealt with application for interim reinstatement to former role – Applicant claimed since entire restructuring a sham, entire restructuring process should be “unwound” and applicant reinstated to former role – Applicant argued no consideration given by respondent to suitability for alternative role – Respondent disputed arguable case existed of sham redundancy – Respondent argued had managerial prerogative to restructure and not practicable to reinstate to non-existent position – Authority found parties conceded arguable case in relation to inadequate consultation process – Found arguable case redundancy not genuine as failures to explore redundancy options – Applicant conceded financial hardship not an issue and undertook if interim reinstatement granted to put redundancy payment into solicitor’s trust account – Applicant claimed subsequent permanent reinstatement and damages not adequate compensation as could only maintain specialised skill set with respondent – Respondent argued disruptive to other staff to attempt unwinding of restructure and little for applicant to do if reinstated – Authority found no financial advantage in interim reinstatement and return to workplace would not assist in substantive application – Found nothing achieved by interim order that could not be addressed by remedies in substantive claim – Found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Found likely outcome of reinstatement less certain in redundancy situation than that of unjustified dismissal – Found genuine business reason for disestablishing applicant’s position – Found applicant needed to prove another different reason to establish redundancy a sham – Authority concluded because purported redundancy situation involving disestablishment of unique position likelihood of reinstatement not as high as unjustified dismissal case – Application declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Cases Cited | Panoho & The Vice-Chancellor of The University of Auckland unreported, L Robinson, 24 April 2008, AA 153/08) |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 100_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |