| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 9A/10 |
| Hearing date | 19 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 19 March 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | A Austin ; K Stretton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Visser v Waiotahi Contractors Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Application for reinstatement – Applicant claimed redundancy procedurally and substantively unjustified – Respondent argued redundancy genuine and proper procedures followed – Respondent faced financial difficulties – Respondent notified staff board meeting to consider business restructure – Minutes of meeting provided respondent discussed with board applicant and other managers’ poor performance – Minutes did not provide specific restructuring plan proposed – After meeting, “proposed restructure” tabled but silent on whether applicant’s position would be made redundant – Applicant received first and final warning for poor performance – Applicant claimed respondent unfairly targeted applicant – Claimed subsequently successfully managed projects until advised redundancy possible – Minutes of second board meeting provided respondent believed applicant’s project management poor – Applicant subsequently made redundant – Authority found respondent faced genuine financial difficulties – Found applicant’s poor performance also motive for redundancy – Found respondent used restructure to “cull” poorly performing mangers to address profitability concerns – Found predominate motive for redundancy applicant’s performance not business needs – Found redundancy procedurally unjustified – Found applicant not given meaningful information about redundancy – Found no opportunity for response – Found attempt to consult applicant about redundancy perfunctory – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found reinstatement not practicable as applicant would eventually face genuine redundancy situation – Reimbursement of lost wages awarded – $10,000 compensation for humiliation appropriate – Applicant sought repayment of $5,000 as respondent gifted sum to applicant - Found no jurisdiction to award compensation for lost benefits – Project Manger |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement declined ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s125 |
| Cases Cited | Forest Park (NZ) Ltd v Adams [2000] 2 ERNZ 310;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 9a_10.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |