Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 464/09
Hearing date 23 Sep 2009
Determination date 21 December 2009
Member D King
Representation A Heinrich ; A Fursdon
Location Auckland
Parties Thickpenny v Superior Sheetmetals Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified - Respondent admitted redundancy process could have been handled better but redundancy genuine - Respondent’s director (“X”) approached another company (“P”) to enquire whether any temporary work for applicant as respondent’s volume of work reduced - Respondent claimed discussed respondent’s situation with applicant and arrangement for work with P and that applicant would remain respondent’s employee - Applicant claimed simply told to go and work for P - P informed respondent work for applicant would end in couple of weeks - Respondent believed P offered applicant full time job - Applicant called to meeting where told respondent’s position not improving and employment would end in two weeks - Respondent advised applicant had turned down offer of employment with P - Applicant claimed employment terminated because X did not like him - Found genuine reason for redundancy as business experiencing problems - Applicant’s claim dismissed because X disliked him rejected - Found dismissal decision predetermined - Found no consultation, applicant not informed of purpose of meeting or given opportunity to obtain representation or advice - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - As redundancy genuine no reimbursement of lost wages awarded - Applicant claimed termination meeting upsetting and unpleasant - Found applicant hurt and humiliated by dismissal - $4,500 compensation appropriate - Foreman
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,500) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Number of Pages 4
PDF File Link: aa 464_09.pdf [pdf 18 KB]