| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 155/09 |
| Hearing date | 29 Apr 2009 |
| Determination date | 11 September 2009 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; J Wilson |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Miller v Receivables Management (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy unjustified – Respondent argued redundancy genuine – Meeting held to discuss applicant being temporarily reallocated to different position while review of business structure undertaken – Respondent explained to applicant reasons for reallocation and sought applicant’s agreement – Eleven days later, applicant advised original position terminated for redundancy – Redundancy confirmed four days later – Respondent subsequently offered applicant alternative position, however, applicant declined – Authority found first meeting should have started consultation process regarding possibility of redundancy – Found no consultation held and applicant directly reallocated to alternative position – Found respondent immediately implemented redundancy process without reviewing applicant’s situation, which would have included reference to alternative positions as provided in earlier memorandum – Found vacancies within company would have averted need for redundancy – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found $6,000 compensation for humiliation appropriate – Found applicant declined alternative position due to lost trust in respondent – No lost remuneration awarded - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed removal of managerial rights based on false allegations caused disadvantage – Authority found respondent instructed to limit applicant’s rights and no disciplinary action taken in regards to misconduct – Applicant claimed reallocation to alternative position constituted unilateral demotion - Found reallocation discussed with agreed to by applicant on basis wage rate remain unchanged – Applicant claimed harassment from caller to call centre caused unjustified disadvantage – Found calls unrelated to employment and received support from respondent – No disadvantage – COSTS – Authority found $2,000 reasonable contribution to applicant’s legal aid costs - Collections Officer/Call centre representative |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000)(Unjustified dismissal) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 155_09.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |