| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 460/10 |
| Hearing date | 24 Sep 2010 |
| Determination date | 27 October 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | D Rishworth ; G Tayler |
| Location | Gisborne |
| Parties | Payne & Anor v Ellmers & Anor t/a Ellmers Properties |
| Other Parties | Payne ; Ellmers |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicants (Mr and Mrs Payne – Employees) argued redundancies not genuine and no consultation – Respondent’s (G Ellmers and S Ellmers t/a Ellmers Properties - Employer) argued dismissals result of genuine redundancy situation and no breach of obligation to consult – Respondents in personal capacity agreed to stand as employer party – Respondents employed applicants as managers of motor lodge – Motor lodge owned by EPP – EPP comprised of two of respondent’s family trusts – Respondent’s argued restructuring plan to allow for retirement and facilitate movement of three daughters into management of family interests – Respondent’s properties sold to respondent’s family trust, however, motor lodge not included in transactions – Subsequently changes in tax legislation prompted last minute inclusion of motor lodge in transactions – Applicants advised employment with EPP would continue in short term but envisaged applicants’ positions would become redundant and replaced with management contractors – Respondent’s argued plan to offer management of motor lodge on contract basis because respondent’s daughter being introduced to business with limited experience – Applicants’ argued redundancy a sham – Applicants informed positions would become redundant upon commencement of management services company – Authority found respondent’s decision to restructure made as part of succession planning programme and because of implications of change in tax rules – Found considerations of this kind just as capable of being genuine reasons for deciding to restructure as more common cost savings reasons – Found no breach of Part 6A Employment Relations Act 2000 – Found imminence of tax changes which prompted quick sale meant impracticable to embark on consultation – Found no breach of good faith in failing to consult prior to sale – Found applicant’s attitude to legal position made respondent’s attempts to discuss matter difficult – Found any flaws in consultation process outweighed by extent of attempt to resolve matters through mediation process – Dismissals justified – Motor lodge managers |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Part 6A;ERA s69;Income Tax Act 2007 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 460_10.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |