| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 34/10 |
| Determination date | 25 February 2010 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | D Taylor ; G Gowland |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Stevens v BM Scott Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Dismissal – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed without warning – Claimed redundancy not genuine – Respondent argued no dismissal and applicant resigned voluntarily – Conflict of evidence whether respondent informed employees of financial situation – Whether respondent explained to applicant termination for redundancy possible if financial situation did not improve – Meeting held – Applicant claimed respondent gave applicant option of taking annual leave until more work available or terminate applicant’s employment for redundancy – Claimed meeting resulted in dismissal as respondent told applicant to see WINZ - Respondent argued intended applicant accept leave option and gave applicant one week to consider – Argued no dismissal – Following day, respondent sent letter to applicant confirming leave option or immediate termination – Letter provided no guarantee would be position for applicant when leave period ended – Applicant accepted termination option – Personal grievance raised – Respondent responded intended applicant accept leave option and disappointed applicant did not meet with respondent prior to resignation – Authority found applicant mistakenly believed dismissed at meeting – Accepted respondent’s evidence applicant given time to consider leave option – Found applicant admitted “sacked”, “dismissed”, “fired” not used at meeting – Found however subsequent letter referred to termination which misled applicant to believe dismissal – Found respondent’s letter initiated dismissal for redundancy and took no steps to clarify intentions with applicant - Found applicant accepted dismissal option due to genuine albeit mistaken belief being dismissed – Found dismissal procedurally unjustified for insufficient redundancy consultation - Dismissal unjustified – Authority noted grievance related more to disadvantage as flawed letter misled applicant to believe dismissal – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Declined lost wages award as applicant failed to mitigate loss – $3,000 compensation appropriate – COSTS – No order for costs - Painter/Decorator |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s122 |
| Cases Cited | North Island Wholesale Groceries v Hewin [1982] 2 NZLR 176;Wellington Clerical Workers IUOW v Greenwich [1983] ACJ 965 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 34_10.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |