| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 286/08 |
| Hearing date | 3 Jul 2008 |
| Determination date | 08 August 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | M Nutsford ; D Erickson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hoyte v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Redundancy – Applicant previously employed by respondent’s predecessors (“CP”) – Respondent stated would meet any award made by Authority concerning CP – Respondent restructured CP to align with overseas operations – Respondent intended CP’s business to be integrated into existing business – Employees advised those not placed after restructure would receive contractual entitlements and outplacement assistance – Employees advised to make application for up to five positions in new structure – Employees advised of criteria for positions for new structure and provided form to comment on selection criteria – Applicant submitted application for current role as well as other roles – Applicant informed application for current role unsuccessful and employment being terminated for redundancy – Applicant wrote to respondent raising concern over redundancy selection – Respondent told applicant scored lowest and selection of candidates based on comparative assessment of all employees – Applicant claimed entirely aggrieved with way assessed compared to other employees – Applicant questioned how co-workers could have scored higher when had only two months service and no background experience – Applicant aggrieved only person replaced and successful applicant did not have relevant experience – Applicant not shown selection committees report before dismissal – Authority found as applicant not shown report prior to dismissal could not do anything if report contained errors or mistakes – Authority found CP wholly failed to meet obligations in redundancy provision in applicant’s individual employment agreement (“IEA”) – Found CP failed to negotiate with respondent concerning impact of restructure on applicant’s position – Authority found respondent’s obligation to secure employment; not applicants – Found CP did not meet express contractual obligation to negotiate with respondent to obtain applicant offer of employment – Found applicant not required to submit self to be assessed – Found technical redundancy situation – Authority found unnecessary to scrutinise reasonableness and application of selection criteria because process did not relate to termination of employment but to invitation for new offer of employment – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – Applicant claimed hurt and angry that nobody had acknowledged situation and felt betrayed by supervisor – Claimed social life suffered and felt depressed – Authority found $6000 compensation appropriate – Customer service imports co-ordinator |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(a);ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s124 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 286_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |