| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 237/10 |
| Hearing date | 13 Apr 2010 |
| Determination date | 21 May 2010 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; D Hood |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dreyer v Auckland City Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy unjustified therefore entitled to full redundancy compensation – Respondent argued no redundancy as applicant re-employed therefore no obligation to pay compensation – Respondent consulted applicant about proposal to disestablish position due to insufficient work – Applicant given opportunity to give feedback and seek representation – Parties met to discuss compensation, garden leave and re-employment – Parties agreed to place applicant on garden leave – Applicant subsequently offered re-employment at alternative position within respondent – Respondent advised applicant two options under employment agreement (“EA”) – First, if accepted redundancy compensation, not eligible for re-employment for one year – Second, could take partial compensation and alternative position – Applicant accepted second option – Applicant received compensation for placement at remunerated rate lower than new position – Personal grievance raised – Authority found redundancy for genuine commercial reasons – Found proper procedures implemented – Found respondent took reasonable steps to find alternatives to termination – Found EA only obliged respondent to pay applicant compensation where employment terminated for redundancy – Found applicant re-employed therefore not entitled to compensation – Found applicant clearly advised of options under EA – No dismissal – Estimator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 237_10.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |