Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 104/10
Hearing date 17 Sep 2009
Determination date 08 March 2010
Member R Arthur
Representation S Carey (in person) ; W Susanto, F Reade
Location Auckland
Parties Carey v Pacific Optics Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant on parental leave when informed respondent considering making position redundant – Applicant alleged respondent knew many months earlier role redundant and should have given opportunity to apply for other roles available during leave period – Respondent claimed role disestablished for genuine business reasons and fair process followed – Respondent arranged part time work for applicant and offered job available shortly after redundancy – Authority did not accept applicant’s submission respondent should have done more, sooner to make decision about position – Found respondent expected to get busier and gave no earlier thought to redundancy – Found respondent asked for applicant’s ideas about redundancy, including alternative positions – Applicant argued role based in Auckland should have been redundant – Found roles different and Auckland position not surplus to requirements – Found applicant’s role still viable at time other positions available – Found decision to disestablish applicant’s position made for genuine business reasons and applicant fairly consulted – Dismissal justified – Business development manager
Result Application dismissed ; No order for costs
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s174;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s41;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s51
Cases Cited GN Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1991] NZLR 151;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] ERNZ 739;Simpsons Farms v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy.