| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 503/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 06 December 2010 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | D Grindle ; A Golightly |
| Location | Whangarei |
| Parties | Hall-Morris v Watson Wells Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed as not genuine redundancy and unjustifiably disadvantaged as no employment agreement (“EA”) – Claimed being not provided EA meant had no knowledge of grievance procedures or redundancy entitlements – Respondent argued redundancy genuine and applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged – Respondent argued failure to provide EA result of oversight – Incident where during meeting with client applicant considered being requested by respondent to do something unethical concerning bank proposal – Applicant claimed obtained legal advice and not prepared to make entries as required by respondent and intended to resign – Respondent met with applicant and explained transaction and argued appeared applicant reassured at close of meeting – Subsequently respondent implemented ongoing review process of applicant’s work – Restructuring proposal presented to employees – Respondent met with applicant to advise position affected – Applicant told new employee appointed due to experience in farming accounting and advised own position affected due to other position being disestablished – Subsequently applicant’s position disestablished – Applicant claimed bank proposal incident motivation for termination – Authority accepted respondent’s argument that bank proposal incident irrelevant to restructuring – Found applicant’s employment terminated as result of genuine redundancy on commercial grounds – Found respondent engaged in genuine consultation with applicant – Found respondent considered suggestions regarding positions in new structure but concluded applicant lacked requisite skill and experience to qualify for either position – Found respondent followed fair process in making applicant redundant – Found dismissal justified – Found respondent acted in breach of good faith requirements by not providing EA pursuant to s65 Employment Relations Act 2000 and this contributed to stress felt by applicant during restructuring process and constituted unjustifiable disadvantage – Remedies – Found $4,000 compensation appropriate – Senior Accountant |
| Result | Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s63A;ERA s65;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Cammish v Parliamentary Service [1996] 1 ERNZ 404;G N Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 503_10.pdf [pdf 64 KB] |