| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 226/09 |
| Hearing date | 20 Apr 2009 |
| Determination date | 08 July 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | M McFadden ; G Bennett |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wong v Baycorp (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant successfully applied for new position following respondents merger – Respondent advised staff of proposed new structure – Applicant one of 8 current team leaders asked to reapply for 6 team leader positions in new structure – Two unsuccessful applicants to be offered alternative lower position or redundancy – Applicant argued job descriptions for 6 positions did not match duties to be carried out – Applicant looked at information provided and applied for position he suspected was same as existing position – Applicant claimed should have gone through reapplication process – Respondent told applicant unsuccessful in positions applied for – Authority found applicant’s existing position same as applied position in new structure – Found applicant’s position not redundant – Found applicant did not have to reapply for position – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – Authority found applicant not entitled to reimbursement of lost wages as redundancy compensation exceeded loss – Found little evidence of humiliation and distress – Found $3000 compensation appropriate – Team leader |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Money v Westpac Banking Corporation [2003] 2 ERNZ 122 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 226_09.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |