| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 329/09 |
| Hearing date | 4 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 11 September 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; R McIlraith, K Dunn |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wee v Skycity Entertainment Group Ltd |
| Summary | INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Respondent’s manager (“P”) restructured company and concluded applicant’s Finance Administrator position redundant – New Personal Assistant (“PA”) position created and applicant encouraged to seek redeployment in that position – Applicant unsuccessful and failed to purse other redeployment opportunities with respondent – Applicant claimed arguable case on four heads – First, redundancy not genuine as PA position substantively similar to applicant’s former position – Second, P did not redeploy applicant in PA position because applicant did not fit into “PA Barbie” stereotype – Third, respondent breached good faith obligations by failing to make “reasonable endeavours to identify suitable redeployment opportunities for applicant – Fourth, respondent had legal duty to preserve applicant’s ability to apply for permanent residence in New Zealand – Respondent conceded weak arguable case – Authority found arguable whether positions essentially same – Found overlapping of duties but different priorities given to particular duties – Found discrimination claim fell away if found arguable applicant’s redundancy substantively unjustified – Found disadvantage claim, even if arguable, could not support reinstatement as position filled – Further evidence and submissions needed on fourth claim – Found arguable threshold met – Authority found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Found applicant’s discrimination claims against P made reinstatement impractical as applicant unable to work alongside P – Found position filled, however, respondent able to offer reinstatement in different position – Found compensation and lost remuneration adequate to remedy no reinstatement to full performance position and discrimination claim – Found fourth claim not relevant to balance because no evidence respondent undertook responsibility to preserve applicant’s ability to apply for permanent residence – Found substantive hearing date close – Found although arguable case not weak, case not strong enough to overcome balance of convenience in respondent’s favour – Found overall justice favoured respondent – Interim reinstatement declined – Finance Administrator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA s101C;ERA s105;ERA s125;ERA s127 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Regional Council v Sanson [1999] 2 ERNZ 597;Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 329_09.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |