| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 190/10 |
| Hearing date | 16 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 07 October 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | T Oldfield ; P McBride |
| Location | Blenheim |
| Parties | Western v Idea Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed dismissed as redundant and entitled to redundancy compensation in accordance with collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Respondent argued did not dismiss applicant but applicant left employment on own accord for employment elsewhere – Respondent wholly owned by IHC NZ – Staff who before respondent commenced, who were employed by IHC able to transfer to respondent – Applicant carried forward service to respondent – Employees transferred to alternative work site due to construction at workplace – Subsequently respondent presented proposal to close workplace site and for service users to attend alternative site – Application of clause 15 CEA at heart of problem – Applicant claimed lack of information meant unable to meaningfully contribute to consultation process about closure proposal – Clause 15 provided for redeployment as first priority – Applicant did not accept offer of redeployment to part time position – Applicant claimed told was only one redeployment option – Union argued offer of part time position not same or substantially same as applicants existing employment – Redundancy compensation sought – Respondent argued as offered applicant alternative position under clause 15 would not offer redundancy compensation if offer refused – Respondent argued applicant’s non return to work considered resignation – Respondent told applicant would process termination as applicant had requested – Authority noted no employee had right to insist on being made redundant – Found single redeployment option offered but not accepted – Found nothing in words of clause 15 to indicate employer could redeploy employee against employee’s wishes – Found no agreement reached between applicant and respondent – Found applicant’s employment with respondent at end unless redeployment offer accepted – Found applicant entitled to redundancy compensation in accordance with clause 15 – Found redundancy compensation provision in CEA limited to transfer of undertaking type staffing surplus situations but not present case – Found ongoing employment on same terms and conditions not offered to applicant – Offer was redeployment at lesser grade, lower pay rate, fewer hours, and performing different work at different location – Remedies – Found applicant entitled to redundancy compensation calculated in accordance with CEA – 5 percent interest awarded – Community support worker |
| Result | Application granted ; Redundancy compensation (Quantum to be determined) ; Interest (5 percent) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c)(i) |
| Cases Cited | Bayliss Sharr and Hanson v McDonald [2006] ERNZ 1058;NZ PSA v Land Corporation Ltd [1991] 1 ERNZ 741 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 190_10.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |