| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 85/09 |
| Hearing date | 17 Apr 2009 |
| Determination date | 16 June 2009 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | M Quigg, S Martin ; S Deegan, C Bates |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Schofield v ANZ National Bank Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – First issue whether applicant offered “comparable position” – Second issue whether applicant entitled to redundancy compensation – Applicant’s position disestablished following restructure – Respondent offered applicant alternative position which applicant declined claiming not “comparable” to current position – Applicant claimed entitled to redundancy compensation as no comparable position offered - Employment agreement (“EA”) provided “comparable position” not measured by changes to duties but employee’s skills and abilities – EA further provided no entitlement to redundancy compensation if comparable position declined – Authority found “comparable position” offered to applicant – Preferred respondent’s evidence accountabilities, responsibilities and skills required for alternative position similar to current position – Found applicant conceded having sufficient skills for alternative position therefore comparable position offered – Found applicant not entitled to redundancy compensation – Question answered in favour of employer – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Redundancy - Applicant claimed redundancy process flawed and failure to pay redundancy compensation caused unjustified disadvantage – Authority found redundancy process justified – Found applicant provided with sufficient information about restructure, made aware of alternative roles, provided with sufficient information and discussions held – Applicant claimed not advised of right to obtain independent advice – Found applicant not advised of right however no prejudice caused to warrant penalty – Applicant claimed employment ended in derogatory way – Found claim not established – No disadvantage – Finance Controller |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 85_09.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |