| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 416/09 |
| Hearing date | 10 Aug 2009 - 31 Aug 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 23 November 2009 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | L Kingdom (Applicant in person) ; A Murray |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kingdom v Isia Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unilateral reduction of work hours caused disadvantage – Respondent argued employment agreement (“EA”) entitled respondent to reduce applicant’s hours for business reasons – Applicant agreed to new EA which provided minimum 35 hours per week and every second Saturday off – Applicant claimed respondent aware applicant could not work Saturdays due to personal reasons at time new EA accepted – Respondent subsequently made numerous reductions in applicant’s hours – Applicant claimed unhappy about change, however, felt no option but to accept – Following year, respondent advised applicant required to work every Saturday – Applicant declined and suggested mediation to resolve matters – Applicant’s hours further reduced – Meetings held with applicant to discuss proposed business restructure – Respondent advised reduction of hours necessary for business – Applicant declined new hours – Applicant’s position terminated for redundancy with notice – Applicant left employment at respondent before notice period finished – Authority found EA required respondent to consult with applicant in good faith before reducing applicant’s work hours – Found EA stipulated minimum 35 hours per week and fundamental to EA – Found reduction of hours was, unless agreed by parties, tantamount to disestablishment of applicant’s position – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – Applicant sought reimbursement of lost wages due to unjustified unilateral reduction of hours – Authority ordered respondent to pay applicant difference between hours applicant would have worked if hours not reduced and hours actually paid - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy unjustified – Respondent argued redundancy for genuine business reasons – Authority found proper procedures followed – Found respondent concluded after consultations with applicant necessary to have therapist on Saturday – Found applicant’s decline of new hours left respondent no choice but to terminate position for redundancy – Found redundancy genuine – Dismissal justified – COSTS – No order for costs - Beauty Therapist |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,035) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 416_09.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |