| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 170/10 |
| Hearing date | 6 Jul 2010 |
| Determination date | 01 September 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Marquet ; D Luttig |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Cunningham v Ricoh New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed during restructure – Respondent argued restructure genuine and process used in considering applicant’s position was that of fair and reasonable employer – Applicant received letter during course of maternity leave proposing to amalgamate present function with logistics function – Logistics function performed by other employees – Applicant informed respondent that not interested in new role – Respondent promptly confirmed applicant’s position was disestablished and consequently applicant redundant – Applicant told respondent would accept monetary payment as gesture of good faith and as full and final settlement – Previously Authority dealt with application to reopen investigation on basis fresh evidence available – Authority agreed to review proposed evidence before making available to respondent – Application to reopen declined – Found creation of new position required of necessity that applicant be consulted – Found respondent had preliminary proposal and genuinely sought applicants thoughts on proposal – Applicant’s informant told applicant that manager had made number of uncharitable remarks about applicant’s work – Manager acknowledged remarks made in heat of the moment – Found heart of applicant’s employment relationship problem was conviction that respondent not prepared to deal with allegations about manager’s behaviour – Found applicant refused to give senior manager authority to put informant’s written statement to manager – Found senior manager explained to applicant could not do anything more until allegation put to manager and response received – Found senior manager’s decision had nothing to do with respondents decision to restructure – Found applicant’s claim that being singled out for dismissal under cover of redundancy did not stand up – Authority satisfied genuine consultation occurred – Found respondent genuinely wanted applicant to be available for new role and sought input about proposal – However, applicant did not understand from meeting that new position was hers if she wanted – Found both parties erred in consultation – Found each had obligation to raise with the other full nature of what was required and way matter could be addressed – Found applicant had not made out claim that was put under pressure by respondent – Found relevant position was new position – Authority looked at question whether failure to reopen created prospect of miscarriage of justice - Found even if Authority able to overcome procedural hurdles to deal with evidence from secret witness prospect of change of view minsicule - No unjustified dismissal – Administration worker |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 170_10.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |