| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 96/09 |
| Hearing date | 11 May 2009 - 28 May 2009 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 16 July 2009 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | S Meikle ; J Drayton |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Savage v Capital & Coast District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed first dismissal letter breached collective employment agreement (“CEA”) therefore unjustified – Respondent argued dismissal letter void for error and immediately withdrawn once error discovered – Applicant received dismissal letter notifying position disestablished and given 17 days dismissal notice – Applicant raised with respondent that CEA required 4 weeks notice therefore dismissal unjustified – Respondent immediately revoked letter and claimed made honest mistake – Authority found first dismissal letter a legitimate notice of redundancy – Found respondent made honest mistake relating to appropriate notice period – Found mistake made letter a nullity as it failed to honour CEA – Found even if letter caused unjustified disadvantage, letter was immediately withdrawn therefore any humiliation or loss suffered by applicant would be slight – No dismissal – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith obligations by ending applicant’s employment while redeployment options being pursued – Respondent argued entitled to end employment relationship after unsuccessfully attempting to engage applicant in redeployment process for 3 ï¾½ months – Respondent encouraged applicant to apply for redeployment positions however applicant declined opportunities – Meeting held and applicant advised respondent wanted to be redeployed after surgery – Conflict of evidence whether respondent agreed to suspend redundancy until after applicant returned from surgery – Respondent had no prior knowledge of surgery – Applicant subsequently received second dismissal letter – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence on matters discussed at meeting – Found respondent failed to clearly advise applicant wanted employment relationship to end because applicant did not engage with redeployment process – Found miscommunications contributed to applicant’s mistaken belief dismissal suspended until after applicant returned from surgery – Found respondent gave applicant reasonable time to pursue redeployment options – Found respondent fulfilled good faith obligations towards applicant, however, applicant failed to be active and constructive towards respondent – Found no evidence respondent’s redundancy process procedurally unjustified – Dismissal justified – Nurse Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Simpson Farms Limited v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 96_09.pdf [pdf 44 KB] |