| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 21/10 |
| Hearing date | 20 Jan 2010 |
| Determination date | 08 February 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | M O'Brien ; M Quigg |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Manger v South Wairarapa District Council |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Whether applicant’s current position substantially different from new role – Respondent underwent restructuring – Applicant argued new position not substantially different from current position – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged as result of respondent’s actions – Dispute in evidence about extent of applicant’s current responsibilities especially regarding managing staff – Authority found new position had significant increase in number of direct and indirect reports, had whole new function, other reshuffling in reports and functions and change in day to day responsibilities – Found applicant’s role substantially changed as result of new position – Found applicant not entitled to compliance order or declaration – GOOD FAITH – Applicant complained about consultation and good faith – Found but for flaws in consultation, respondent would not have decided applicant’s position substantially changed – Found applicant’s grievance about consultation subject of separate determination – Manager, works and services |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Howard v NZ Pastoral Agricultural Research Institute Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 479 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 21_10.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |