| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 369/08 |
| Hearing date | 1 May 2008 |
| Determination date | 28 October 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | J Turner ; H Robinson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Blake v Senate Nursing Bureau Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed redundancy not for genuine business reasons – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent who wrongly suspected applicant paid for hours also worked for another employer (“P”) – Respondent argued redundancy made for genuine commercial reasons without ulterior motives – Applicant claimed respondents concerns over work with P not put to him for explanation or comment before redundancy decision made – Applicant agreed would work 32 hours a week for respondent but continue working part time for P – Parties disagreed over whether arrangement for part time work to total one or two days weekly – Applicant’s manager at P refused to supply respondent with information of applicant’s hours at P – Authority found respondent did not mention concerns to applicant until day after redundancy decision – Respondent told applicant knew applicant “double dipping” – Authority found even if respondent did have mixed motives in making redundancy decision, evidence did not support finding was predominant motive for redundancy – Found more likely significant commercial pressures reason for redundancy decision – Dismissal substantively justified - Authority found respondents actions not that of fair and reasonable employer as applicant not advised prospect of redundancy before decision made, not advised of “double dipping” concerns, and sprung redundancy decision– Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Authority found applicant not entitled to reimbursement of lost wages as redundancy for genuine commercial reasons – Authority found applicant embarrassed about having to explain rapid change in situation to P – Found $6,000 compensation appropriate – COUNTERCLAIM – Authority declined respondent’s counterclaim for fuel expenses, overpaid wages, and days worked for P – Mental health division manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Counterclaim dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki etc Caretakers, Cleaners etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079 (CA);PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 369_08.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |