| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 31 |
| Hearing date | 3 Aug 2010 |
| Determination date | 21 February 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | J Sanders ; J Shingleton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Waenga and Anor v Clemence Drilling Contractors Ltd |
| Other Parties | Isherwood |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicants claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicants received letters advising of potential redundancies – Applicants informed positions redundant – Applicants claimed respondent only provided general and simplistic information and applicants did not understand positions at risk – Applicants claimed other positions should have been selected for redundancy instead of applicants’ – Applicants claimed redundancies not genuine because respondent engaged additional staff at time applicants declared surplus and advertised vacancies after dismissal – Respondent claimed additional staff employed as casuals prior to redundancies to perform specific contract – Authority found presence of casual employees did not undermine respondent’s position – Found advertisement reaction to contract won after applicants dismissal – Found evidence of respondent’s financial difficulties unchallenged by applicants – Found respondent substantively justified for considering redundancies – Applicants claimed plenty of work and severity of situation never made clear – Found significant reduction in amount of work performed and equipment underutilised – Found applicants should have been aware of situation – Found no consultation about selections – Found significant procedural deficiency which was not action of fair and reasonable employer – Found different outcome would not have eventuated if fair procedure followed – Found applicants chosen for redundancy based on limited skills – Found applicants would not have avoided selection had consultation occurred – Found failure to consult and disclose selection criteria rendered dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found no wage loss because dismissal would have occurred notwithstanding consultative deficiency – $3,000 compensation appropriate – Offside Labourer and Drillers Assistant |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000)(first applicant) ($3,000)(second applicant) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Aoraki Corp Ltd v McGavin [1998] ERNZ 601;Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660;Wang v Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust [2010] ENZ 468 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_31.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |