| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 5A/10 |
| Hearing date | 11 Feb 2010 - 12 Feb 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 14 May 2010 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | L Yukich ; G Service, A Campbell |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Gilbert v Transfield Services (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Respondent reviewed business needs after securing new client contract – Same redundancy process implemented throughout national offices – Meetings held with affected employees – Information outlining reasons for restructure, redundancy process and selection criteria provided – Applicant present at all relevant meetings – Applicant completed assessments pursuant to selection process – Applicant interviewed by independent managers - Selection criteria based on skills, attributes and motivation to learn and accept feedback – Independent managers agreed on applicant’s score after interview – Applicant made redundant as position superfluous to business needs – Personal grievance raised – Applicant claimed position not superfluous therefore redundancy substantively unjustified – Authority found respondent needed to restructure to meet obligations under new contract – Found respondent entitled to make identified positions surplus under employment agreement (“EA”) – Found redundancy substantively justified – Applicant claimed redundancy procedurally unjustified – Found respondent held consultation with applicant, provided accurate information and kept applicant up to date with all developments – Found applicant had opportunity to give feedback but did not do so within specified timeframe - Found redundancy process implemented consistently throughout national offices - Found redundancy procedurally justified – Applicant claimed selection criteria not consistent with EA – Redundancy clause provided employees selected for redundancy based on skills and attributes necessary for continuing business operations – Found selection criteria based on skills and attributes – Found respondent looked for employees with “role purpose” which takes into account motivation and adaptability under new structure – Found selection criteria consistent with EA – Applicant claimed discriminated against for being involved with union – Found no evidence of discrimination – Applicant claimed disadvantaged because not assessed against “new venture employees” – Found respondent correctly assessed applicant with other employees involved with new client contract – Found no evidence failure to assess against new venture employees caused disadvantage – Found causal and fixed term employees not given preferential treatment – Dismissal justified – No disadvantage – Communications Technician |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Dunn v Methanex New Zealand Ltd [1996] 2 ERNZ 222 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 5a_10.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |