| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 168/10 |
| Hearing date | 12 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 31 August 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | S Fairclough ; G Herbert |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Heaney v Herbert t/a Equestrian Hotel and Anor |
| Other Parties | Country Hospitality Management (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed following restructuring by respondent – Respondents argued applicant’s position disestablished following legitimate restructure – Respondents conceded applicant not provided written employment agreement (“EA”) – Authority found applicant employed by second respondent – Respondent provided employees with restructuring proposal and sought submissions from affected staff – Applicant made no submissions – Affected employees given option to apply for new roles – Applicant claimed applied for two new positions – Respondents argued applicant withdrew interest in part time position during interview process – Subsequently applicant ranked least favourable of three applicants for new positions – Authority satisfied redundancy genuine – Found first respondent losing money over significant period and effectively propped up by personal resources – Found first respondent invested significant personal funds into business – Applicant claimed selected for redundancy because of improper process infected by bias and predetermination – Respondents’ evidence preferred – Authority rejected applicant’s arguments that respondent motivated by previous personal grievance brought by applicant’s wife against respondents – No evidence to demonstrate redundancy a sham – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that believed submissions would not be considered by respondents – Found evidence clear applicant found least suitable of three applicants – Found second respondent adopted proper process, provided affected employees with reasonable information, and applied process fairly and equitably – Found no bias or predetermination by respondents – Dismissal justified – PENALTY – Respondent argued at a loss to understand why applicant did not have written EA – Authority found not appropriate to award penalty – Found respondent not callous employer which routinely ignored obligations to staff – Found absence of written EA for applicant an inadvertent oversight – Penalty declined – Night Porter |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Dismissal)(Penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 168_10.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |