| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 54/09 |
| Hearing date | 11 Feb 2009 |
| Determination date | 01 May 2009 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | M McAleer ; M Beech, V Weinberg |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Panoho v Whirinaki Log Transfer Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed dismissal for redundancy not genuine and unfair – All employees given notice of restructure and told individual meetings to be held – Respondent gave applicant “redundancy notice” which argued was redundancy proposal – Applicant decided not to respond because believed redundant – Applicant met with respondent and was paid one month’s pay in lieu of notice – Authority found genuine restructure – Found reliance on absence of detailed documents not unusual for running of small to medium businesses – Found respondent consulted with applicant on restructure – Found information provided to applicant sufficient – Found applicant given skills matrix template – Found unreasonable for applicant to have thrown away skills matrix template because provided for response – Found matrix only part of basis on which redundancy decision made – Found not necessary for employer to disclose and rely on documents to justify restructuring so long as acted in good faith – Authority found applicant not informed about skills of ring-fenced employees – However, benefit of doubt given to respondent due to sufficient approach to restructuring even though failed to follow best practice – Authority found unfair applicant not informed purpose of final meeting to convey redundancy decision – Found respondent’s “redundancy notice” not redundancy proposal – Found applicant had no opportunity to discuss redeployment before redundancy decision – Found dismissal procedurally unjustified – Remedies – Found no contributory conduct – Found applicant could not be compensated for loss of job due to genuine redundancy – Found as dismissal only procedurally unjustified compensation for humiliation etc at lower end of scale – Found $2,000 compensation appropriate – Sawmill & chip mill machine operator |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825;Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] 1 ERNZ 660;Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601;Brighouse Ltd v Bilderbeck [1994] 2 ERNZ 243; [1995] 1 NZLR 158 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 54_09.pdf [pdf 60 KB] |