| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 403/10 |
| Hearing date | 27 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 07 September 2010 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | C Bennett ; A Toresen |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Gardner v Link Business Broking Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and did not accept substantive justification for redundancy – Applicant claimed higher paid colleague’s (“F”) position should have been disestablished first – Respondent justified redundancy on grounds of serious financial difficulties and applicant’s duties easily distributed among others – Respondent admitted did not provide applicant with any information about redundancy proposal – Authority found failure to provide information breached good faith obligations – Applicant argued because F took over advertising duties F engaged to do applicant’s job – F employed by franchisor in Head Office and assimilated applicant’s duties into work already doing – Found F not employed by respondent and did not take over applicant’s job – Redundancy genuine – Applicant claimed typist should have been made redundant because on higher salary and typing could be shared between other staff – Found impractical to disestablish typist role – Found decision about which position to disestablish within respondent’s management prerogative – Two meetings held to discuss redundancy – Found applicant not given advance warning of meetings, not told what meetings were about, and not offered right to bring support person – Found respondent failed to table restructuring proposal – Found applicant unable to meaningfully engage in consultation – Found applicant not given access to information relevant to proposed redundancy – Found process unfair – REMEDIES – Reimbursement of lost wages inappropriate because redundancy genuine – $4,000 compensation appropriate – COSTS – One day investigation meeting – Applicant sought contribution to costs – $3,000 costs appropriate – Administration Team Leader |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($3,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(c)(i);ERA s4(1A)(c)(ii);ERA s128 |
| Cases Cited | Simpson Farms v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 403_10.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |