| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 128/09 |
| Hearing date | 1 Sep 2009 |
| Determination date | 07 September 2009 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | J Murphy ; A Paddison |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Cottle v Maintenance Manawatu Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unfairly selected for redundancy – Respondent argued followed proper procedures and used objective criteria in selection process – Respondent advised applicant work hours reduced due to decreased business – Applicant received letter outlining business restructure and requested applicant attend meeting – Respondent held group meetings and meetings with individual employees – Applicant missed final individual meeting with respondent – Applicant’s position terminated for redundancy – Authority found redundancy for genuine business reasons – Found respondent held meetings to consult applicant on restructure, however applicant failed to pay attention to matters – Found respondent used objective selection criteria but failed to advise applicant of selection criteria therefore no opportunity for input provided – Found even if opportunity given, outcome would be same – Found no evidence to support applicant’s claim respondent made threats – Found no evidence to support respondent’s allegation applicant in possession of respondent’s property – Dismissal justified – Builder |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660;Simpsons Farms v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 128_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |