| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 68/10 |
| Hearing date | 30 Nov 2009 |
| Determination date | 16 March 2010 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | M McGinn ; J Delore |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Matyagina v Matipo Trading Company Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant worked for seven days before being handed letter dismissing her for redundancy - Applicant claimed redundancy not genuine and implementation process unfair - Respondent claimed redundancy genuine and process fair - Found employment agreement contained employee protection provision but no redundancy provision as such - Applicant claimed redundancy not genuine for three reasons - Firstly, applicant claimed respondent’s managing director (“D”) preferred another applicant who initially declined offer but subsequently wished to be considered for role again - Applicant claimed as result D had no interest in training her - Authority not satisfied about matter from evidence - Secondly, applicant claimed respondent had ulterior motive of poor performance as reason for redundancy - Applicant claimed received no training or assistance - Claimed D generally unhappy with her performance - Found likely D made comments about applicant’s performance - Found likely was unpleasant exchange about applicant’s performance between applicant and D day before applicant dismissed - Found applicant so upset by exchange was considering resigning even though needed job for financial reasons - Found performance concerns not properly managed - Found for employment of such short duration were extraordinary number of performance concerns - Thirdly, applicant claimed no satisfactory evidence of poor financial performance by respondent - D claimed only became aware of financial difficulties after applicant employed - Authority found unlikely that while D advertising and interviewing for position had not considered whether respondent could afford position - Found raised doubts as to whether redundancy for genuine commercial reasons - Found were significant procedural deficiencies - Applicant given no opportunity to comment on redundancy - Found total failure to consult with applicant about redundancy cast doubt on genuineness - Found more likely respondent motivated to terminate employment for perceived performance concerns - Found redundancy not for genuine reasons - Found process not what fair and reasonable employer would have done - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Found performance issues not properly addressed so could not be said contributed in blameworthy way to personal grievance - Applicant sought three months lost wages - Authority not satisfied employment would have continued for that period - Found appropriate to limit reimbursement of lost wages to one month less one week notice period - Found was shortfall in applicant’s wages, holiday pay and notice period - Respondent claimed applicant not particularly distressed when advised position redundant - Applicant claimed D put her down, her confidence suffered, and hurt by way treated as had not been treated like that before - Authority accepted applicant distressed and humiliated - Authority took into account applicant considering resigning - $5,000 compensation appropriate - Office administrator |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,060.20) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($171.65) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 68_10.pdf [pdf 48 KB] |