| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 86/09 |
| Hearing date | 20 Aug 2008 |
| Determination date | 25 March 2009 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | R Pool ; J Ropati |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Talbot v Gemtech Solutions Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed following redundancy – Respondent claimed redundancy genuine due to loss of business – Applicant invited to attend “review meeting” – Respondent advised applicant restructuring due to loss of key client and redundancy may result – Conflict of evidence whether applicant had notice of possible redundancy before meeting - Conflict of evidence whether applicant offered alternative position at another office – Subsequently, applicant met with company directors and neither directors or applicant’s manager discussed pending restructure or redundancy – Applicant attended second meeting – Applicant requested information regarding restructure be provided at meeting – Respondent declined claiming documents needed to be “signed off” by directors – Respondent asked whether relocating to another office an option – Applicant responded relocation not an option - Respondent confirmed redundancy and no alternative position existed – Applicant raised concerns regarding redundancy process and refuted respondent’s claim insufficient work available - Authority found no reasonable grounds existed for redundancy – Respondent failed to provide information to Authority claiming information needed to be “signed-off” by directors however information available from applicant’s database – Authority inferred from claim respondent had no settled business plan for restructure and applicant could personally research redundancy proposal – Found not applicant’s responsibility to seek out redundancy proposal - Found failure to provide applicant information unreasonable – Found failure to give applicant opportunity to comment unreasonable – Found undue speed with which redundancy carried out contributed to miscommunications regarding relocation – Found consultation process unsatisfactory - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Reimbursement of two months lost wages – Found $6,000 compensation appropriate - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant claimed respondent made undertaking applicant’s position would be secured for two years therefore redundancy breached Fair Trading Act 1986 – Authority found if undertaking was made it would be too broad to translate into specific assurance when not in writing – Application declined - Consultant |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Fair Trading Act); Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be decided) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1)(a);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(4)(d);ERA s4(4)(e);ERA s103A;ERA s124;Fair Trading Act 1986 |
| Cases Cited | Sinclair v Webb & McCormick Ltd (1990) 3 NZELC 97 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 86_09.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |