| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 317/09 |
| Hearing date | 5 Mar 2009 - 2 Apr 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 04 September 2009 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | M Dew ; A Drake |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Aninion v Vodafone New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant argued disadvantaged by action of respondent reducing performance rating from “needs improvement” to “poor” – Authority found disadvantage in that applicant no longer entitled to bonus – Following performance review respondent altered applicant’s core responsibilities for personal development – Applicant argued number of functions of role unilaterally removed and role redundant – Found no unilateral changes to applicant’s role – All discussions about changes to role undertaken to keep applicant happy – Found respondent acted fairly and reasonably in all circumstances – No unjustified disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal – Applicant claimed forced to resign from employment – Found no breach by employer – No unjustified dismissal – GOOD FAITH – Applicant claimed respondent retracted statement that significant changes made to applicant’s role – Found respondent simply trying to find way to ensure applicant completed required core tasks in proper way – Applicant argued not entitled to usual employee benefits because respondent aware applicant sought redundancy – Found applicant did not receive personal development and training because applicant did not require it in regard to core responsibilities – Found no breach in failing to pay bonus – Applicant claimed respondent breached good faith by forcing resignation without meeting redundancy compensation obligations – Found applicant still had role with respondent and not redundant – No breach of good faith |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Electric Power Board v Auckland Provincial District Local Authorities Officers IOUW Inc [1994] ERNZ 168;Bilkey v Imagepac Partners, unreported, 7 October 2000, AC65/02;Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in liq) [1998] AC 20; [1999] 2 All ER 1;Mason v Health Waikato [1998] ERNZ 84;McCosh v National Bank, unreported, 13 September 2004, AC49/04;New Zealand Public Service Association v the Land Corporation Ltd [1991] ERNZ 741;NZ Storeworkers IUW v South Pacific Tyres (NZ) Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 452 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 317_09.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |