| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 63/09 |
| Hearing date | 26 Mar 2009 |
| Determination date | 15 May 2009 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | P Cranney ; W Gazley |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Ipsilos v Tool Team Ltd previously Parapine Partners Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Applicant claimed abusive behaviour caused disadvantage and unjustifiably dismissed following unfair redundancy procedures – Applicant requested by respondent to cover shifts in absence of other employees – Authority found probable applicant accepted request but response not heard by respondent - Respondent shouted abusive language in frustration – Applicant contacted union and meeting arranged with respondent to discuss incident and clarify employment role – Respondent accepted meeting saying “bring it on” – At meeting, respondent advised applicant of redundancy due to decision to contract out repair and vehicle servicing – Respondent claimed applicant accepted redundancy – Applicant dismissed - Authority found respondent’s behaviour not standard expected of reasonable employers however no unjustified disadvantage caused – Found if behaviour was unjustified, no disadvantage caused because discussion left unclear as to whether applicant would cover at time request made – Found no subsequent reinforcement of intention to cover by applicant – Found “bring it on” not intimidation because respondent agreed to meeting with applicant’s representative – Found respondent could have relied on employment agreement when making the request – Found likely applicant’s decision to involve union in matters made employment less secure but ground not particularised in disadvantage grievance - Found dismissal unjustified for unfair redundancy procedure – Found no notice of redundancy given – Found no acceptance of redundancy by applicant - Found no discussion of alternatives and reasons for redundancy – Found respondent’s deliberate act to surprise applicant with predetermined decision breached good faith – No disadvantage – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – No lost wages award – Found applicant not willing to work in alternative retail position – Found $6,000 compensation appropriate – COSTS – Authority found contribution to costs of $2,750 appropriate – Service Technician |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,750) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(4);ERA s4(4)(e);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2002] 2 NZLR 533;Simpson Farms v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 63_09.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |