| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 406/10 |
| Hearing date | 25 May 2010 - 21 Jun 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 10 September 2010 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; K Dunn |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Piper v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Respondent commenced consultation process regarding restructuring proposal - During consultation process was agreed two groups would be amalgamated into one group - Applicant and seven other employees advised positions disestablished and invited to apply for one of six new positions - Applicant unsuccessfully applied for new position - Applicant dismissed for redundancy - Authority found no dispute restructuring for genuine commercial reasons therefore redundancy genuine - Applicant claimed process flawed and decision not to appoint him to new position biased and predetermined - Applicant claimed respondent’s human resources advisor (“T”) provided assistance to two fellow employees (“X and Y”) in that typed up their applications for new positions - T admitted typing letters for X and Y but claimed did so to assist them after they sought her help - Claimed often called on to assist employees facing redundancy and assistance of X and Y not isolated - Authority found not established assistance provided to X and Y affected outcome of interview process - Found T would have provided assistance to applicant if requested - Applicant claimed one of respondent’s managers (“K”), who ultimately decided on appointments to new roles, provided assistance to X and Y not made available to applicant - X and Y questioned K about interview process - Found K did not coach X or Y as to how should answer interview questions - Found information K provided very general - Found no evidence of bias or predetermination - Applicant critical of respondent for not providing information about ranking system - Found while ranking system not provided applicant provided with job description and list of skills and attributes being assessed against - Authority satisfied information provided to applicant sufficient to enable him to address each skill and attribute fully at interview - Applicant claimed respondent breached redundancy policy - Found no evidence of breach - Found respondent delayed giving applicant notice of redundancy in case one of successful employee’s changed mind and opted for voluntary redundancy thereby leaving vacancy applicant could be offered - Found respondent attempted to find redeployment option - Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Water and Waste Coordinator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 406_10.pdf [pdf 20 KB] |