| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 90/10 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jul 2009 |
| Determination date | 01 March 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | P Cranney ; G Blair |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Partridge v Juken New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant’s position redundant and applicant transferred to another role – Applicant claimed redundant and entitled to redundancy compensation – Respondent argued Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) gave discretion to direct employees to other duties provided those duties were not inconsistent with employee’s current skill level – Respondent argued employees at same level were in same position – Issue whether respondent lawfully entitled to require or instruct applicant to undertake duties in other role – Authority found applicant essentially functioning in lower level role but being paid same as former position – Applicant argued role less senior than former role – Found new position different from previous role – Found CEA and work practices premised on understanding workforce multi-skilled and flexible – Found applicant not qualified to take up full duties and performing at lower level – Found CEA not sufficiently broad to permit redeployment to role where further training required – Found respondent acted outside scope of discretion – Found breach not repudiatory in nature – Found transfer amounted to unjustified action – Applicant unhappy in new role – Applicant entitled to decline role – Found did not automatically lead to redundancy situation – Found parties should discuss other redeployment options – REMEDIES – $5,000 compensation appropriate |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Application dismissed (redundancy) ; Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Carter Holt Harvey v Wallis [1998] 3 ERNZ 984;Ma’alo v Marine & Industry Safety Inspection Services Limited unreported, GJ Wood, 10 Feb 2000, WT25/00 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 90_10.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |