| Summary |
JURISDICTION – Whether applicant had standing to pursue personal grievance against respondent - Applicant’s previous employer (“C”) made applicant redundant when C purchased by respondent – Respondent offered employment to 100 of 117 staff previously employed by C, but not applicant – Three months later, respondent advertised vacancy for job applicant claimed same or similar to position with C – Applicant contested respondent’s decision to not employ applicant – Respondent argued that, having never employed applicant, applicant had no standing to raise grievance against it – Respondent also argued advertised job not same as applicant’s position with C, and applicant did not apply for advertised position – Authority found preliminary issue whether applicant fell within statutory definition of employee to have standing and pursue grievance against respondent – Found not “employee” as required by s103(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) – Found applicant not person intending to work in extended s6 ERA definition, as not offered employment – Found Part 6A ERA not applicable as work and position with C did not include providing services listed in Schedule 1A ERA, nor did provisions of subpart 2, Part 6A, create other statutory right of election or transfer for applicant, and no evidence that transfer of staff was condition for sale of business – Found Authority could not proceed to investigate grievance because applicant not employee of respondent and had no standing to pursue application - COSTS – Respondent sought contribution to costs of $1,000 – Authority accepted costs award in that sum probably appropriate – Authority provided opportunity for applicant to be heard on issue of costs before costs set - Technician |