| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 466/10 |
| Hearing date | 23 Sep 2010 |
| Determination date | 29 October 2010 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | L de Vries, A Silberstein ; G Service, E Moore |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Edkins v Transfield Services (New Zealand) |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified because should not have been selected for redundancy – Claimed had issues with manager which resulted in unfair assessment against respondent’s selection criteria – Respondent argued applicant selected for redundancy following fair process where selection criteria properly applied – Argued process specifically designed to eliminate potential bias – Respondent signed agreement to perform services for third party – Agreement required respondent to operate more efficiently and staff required to be more flexible and multi-skilled to ensure third party’s key performance indicators met – Applicant sought review of results of Sonar 6 (“S6”) assessment tool – Respondent concluded S6 had given applicant accurate reflection of performance – Authority noted although application of selection criteria fell within employer’s exclusive management prerogative, was proper to investigate whether criteria fairly and accurately applied – Authority found respondent had genuine reasons, based on reasonable grounds for score given to applicant – Found respondent did not take into account irrelevant or improper factors in assessment – Credibility finding in favour of respondent – Found respondent had not used information during selection process that had not previously been shared with applicant – Respondent argued applicant’s reduced scores reflected changes in applicant’s performance and attitude – Argued applicant taking extended breaks, unwilling to help when required, and refused to do overtime – Found applicant’s inclusion into review pool justified – Found applicant’s selection for redundancy justified – Found scores given to applicant during interview process justified – Found irrelevant information not taken into account in applicant’s selection for redundancy – Found checks and balances built into redundancy process to ensure potential bias removed – No unjustified dismissal – COSTS – One day investigation meeting – Found appropriate to adjust nominal starting rate per day upwards to reflect additional expense respondent incurred as result of allegations applicant decided not to pursue immediately before investigation meeting started – Authority noted investigation meeting could have possibly been avoided if assessment information provided at earliest opportunity and parties attended mediation – Applicant ordered to pay respondent $2,000 contribution to costs – Technician |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs in favour of respondent ($2,000) |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s4(1A) |
| Cases Cited | Coutts Cars v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660;NZ Building Trades Union v Hawke's Bay Area Health Board [1992] 2 ERNZ 897 |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 466_10.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |