| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 239/10 |
| Hearing date | 3 Dec 2009 - 7 Apr 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 24 May 2010 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | M Smyth ; A Drake |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Allison v United Group (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed dismissal for redundancy unjustified – Respondent decided to restructure operations from geographic to delivery based model – Affected employees given consultation document and invited to provide feedback – Document outlined selection criteria – Applicant applied, and subsequently interviewed for new managerial role – Respondent argued applicant did not perform well at interview and scored least favourably of candidates – Subsequently applicant advised application not successful and employment terminated for redundancy – Authority found restructure genuine commercial decision – Applicant claimed respondent used restructure to engineer dismissal and advance co-worker within respondent – Applicant claimed decision makers biased and redundancy predetermined – Authority found applicant’s real complaint that should have been selected for one of new positions – Found curious applicant’s position not explicitly identified to be disestablished – Found co-worker not explicitly identified as candidate for selection while applicant was – Found applicant fully appreciated element of risk in exercise and was submitting self for selection possibly unsuccessfully – Found respondent conducted full and fair consultation process – Found respondent’s actions to terminate applicant’s employment for redundancy were actions of fair and reasonable employer – No unjustified dismissal – 25 year service – Area Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 239_10.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |