Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 222/09
Hearing date 3 Feb 2009
Determination date 06 July 2009
Member L Robinson
Representation SG Hughes-Sparrow (in person) ; S O'Brien
Location Auckland
Parties Hughes-Sparrow v Rug Doctor (New Zealand) Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy procedurally and substantively unjustified – Respondent argued followed fair redundancy process – Respondent held presentation on restructure proposal and expressly notified applicant position affected – Applicant gave feedback however advised proposal confirmed without amendments – Respondent’s Director invited applicant to apply for alternative positions however applicant declined – Applicant dismissed, offered redundancy compensation and given 4 weeks notice – Authority found redundancy genuinely pursued business goals – Found respondent consulted applicant on proposal, gave opportunity for input and all good faith obligations met – Found applicant mistakenly believed position could not be made redundant because applicant was only registered technician – Found applicant exercised own prerogative by not applying for alternative positions – Dismissal justified – ARREARS OF WAGES – Authority ordered respondent to pay applicant 20 days arrears of wages – Applicant claimed bonus payment of $400 owing – Authority found equitable to order bonus payment given respondent’s failure to assess applicant’s bonus entitlement pursuant to employment agreement – Respondent ordered to pay applicant $400 for bonus payment – Service Technician
Result Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Arrears of Wages) ; Arrears of wages ($521.35) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4;ERA s103A
Cases Cited GN Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151
Number of Pages 9
PDF File Link: aa 222_09.pdf [pdf 40 KB]