| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 172/09 |
| Hearing date | 4 Mar 2009 |
| Determination date | 29 May 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | N Carter ; I Davidson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kent v Signature Security Ltd |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER – Applicant sought compliance order for bonus incentives allegedly offered by respondent – Applicant invited to transfer to respondent after made redundant from Radius (“R”) - R advised employment with respondent would be on same terms and conditions – Applicant received pamphlet outlining incentives offered by respondent – Applicant accepted employment with respondent – Applicant claimed incentive payments induced employment agreement (“EA”) - Respondent claimed pamphlet mistakenly received by applicant and not eligible for incentives – Authority found no actionable representation made by respondent – Found applicant not influenced by incentives to enter EA – Found open to inference applicant influenced by offer of employment on same terms and conditions as previous employment - Found decision not influenced by incentives discussion with Manager – Found respondent had no intention to offer incentives to applicant because incentives for fixed term employees – Found no inducement therefore applicant not entitled to incentive payments or damages – Found no breach of EA - Applicant further claimed respondent breached term of EA – Found claim based on representation made by R therefore not actionable against respondent – Compliance order declined - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Good faith - Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy procedurally and substantively unjustified – Authority found redundancy genuine however procedure unjustified – Found respondent failed to consult applicant on alternative opportunities – Respondent argued applicant’s intention to resign waived need for consultation – Found applicant had no intention to resign at time of dismissal – Found respondent’s failure to consult applicant breached good faith obligations causing disadvantage – Disadvantage unjustified – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – No reimbursement of lost wages – Found no loss and voluntary choice not to obtain new employment – Found $4,000 compensation appropriate – Community Care Coordinator |
| Result | Applications granted (Unjustified disadvantage) (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Compliance order) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | Contractual Remedies Act 1976 s6;ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s4 (1A)(c);ERA s4(1);ERA s4(4);ERA s103A;ERA s122;Fair Trade Act 1986 |
| Cases Cited | Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 172_09.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |