| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 170/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Dec 2009 |
| Determination date | 14 April 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; B Murray |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kidston v Federated Pacific Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed respondent failed to consult about prospect of redundancy – Authority found applicant aware of likelihood of redundancy and given opportunity to have input into restructuring process – Respondent claimed applicant not surprised by redundancy position and offered assistance contacting recruiting agent – Found respondent properly consulted applicant and provided opportunity to prepare for meeting and considerate in conveying decision – Dismissal justified – Applicant claimed compensation for paid parental leave – Applicant pregnant and due to garden leave could not get another job and be eligible for parental leave – Found no entitlement to compensation for parental leave – Found nothing illegitimate about serving notice period with respondent – Found paid parental leave benefit and payment for lost benefit could not be awarded as remedy for personal grievance – BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant’s employment agreement required three months notice of redundancy – Respondent made arrangements for applicant to serve notice on garden leave – Applicant claimed respondent breached employment agreement by requiring applicant to serve notice period on garden leave – Found garden leave not imposed on applicant – Found applicant given option of serving notice at work or at home – Found no breach of employment agreement – ARREARS OF HOLIDAY PAY AND BONUS – Respondent asked applicant to take annual leave and lieu days during notice period as part of close down over Christmas and New Year period – Applicant claimed told by respondent leave would expire if not taken – Applicant sought payment for holiday entitlements which respondent required applicant to use during notice period – Found applicant did not consent to garden leave on basis would extinguish leave entitlement – Found respondent unable to require leave to be taken in advance of earning entitlement – Holiday pay due and owing – Applicant claimed entitled to winter bonus – Found applicant worked on generating sales orders and leave taken at respondent’s instigation – Found winter bonus due and owing – Designer and merchandiser |
| Result | Applications dismissed (unjustified dismissal) (breach of contract) ; Application granted (Arrears of holiday pay and bonus) ; Arrears of holiday pay (14 days) ; Arrears of bonus ($5,840) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s174;Holidays Act 2003 s19;Holidays Act 2003 s20 |
| Cases Cited | Huntley v Maataa Waka Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust unreported, H Doyle, 22 Sept 2008, CA 74B/08;McAulay v Sonoco New Zealand Limited [1998] 2 ERNZ 225 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 170_10.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |