| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 221/10 |
| Hearing date | 18 Feb 2010 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2010 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | D Church (Applicant in person) ; M Wisker |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Church v James Hardie NZ Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant dismissed for redundancy following consultation process - As result of economic downturn respondent had sought to reduce costs - Respondent determined functions of applicant's role could be absorbed by other positions - Applicant claimed for last two weeks of employment under duress as subordinate employee refusing to cooperate and position under threat - Following dismissal applicant saw advertisement for what he believed was position had been made redundant from - Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified - Authority found decision to redistribute functions performed by applicant amongst existing roles legitimate decision - Found decision to disestablish applicant's role genuine commercial decision - Redundancy genuine - Found consultation process full and fair - Found applicant consulted, participated in process, and offered feedback - Found respondent's actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Found advertised role not applicant's former role - Found no issue around subordinate employee that had any relevance to redundancy decision - Dismissal justified - Environment Health and Safety Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 221_10.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |