| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 69 |
| Hearing date | 3 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 23 May 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | P Churchman ; D Rhodes |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Andersen v Slinkskins Tannery Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant member of union and party to collective employment agreement (“CEA”) - Applicant eleventh out of 26 employees on seniority list – Respondent experiencing downturn in business due to global economic situation – Respondent seasonally laid off staff but was able to rehire several months later – However, situation did not improve and respondent had to consider redundancies - Applicant on leave when number of other employees informed about redundancies – Applicant called to special meeting where told was to be made redundant – Some employees lower on seniority list were retained - Follow up meeting about redundancies did not resolve issues and ended prematurely when another employee and manager got into a heated discussion - Applicant sent template letter stating was redundant – Approximately three months after dismissal respondent reemployed number of employees that had made redundant – Authority found evidence showed employees were telephoned by respondent about roles – Respondent claimed did not telephone applicant as had not filled out application form available at first redundancy meeting – Authority found evidence about application forms unconvincing to extent not satisfied were any application forms either mentioned or provided during meeting – Found therefore was not adequate reason why applicant not contacted and offered role - Found failure to contact applicant and offer employment when clear other employees offered employment cast considerable doubt that redundancy was genuine reason for applicant’s dismissal - Authority found was no real paper tail in what was quite significant restructuring and redundancy situation – Authority not satisfied applicant’s position genuinely redundant - Found applicant not provided with any information about proposed decision to make position redundant and did not have opportunity to comment on it – Found applicant simply told position redundant and given at most a weeks notice – Found applicant would have retained position if seniority had been followed in accordance with list - Found seniority list departed from on basis that employees were retained with skills and experience respondent needed but was no proper analysis undertaken with applicant about skills and experience had in particular area – Found respondent did not comply with requirement in CEA that if employees unable able to find work, respondent would make endeavours to obtain work on their behalf - Found applicant had been employee for 16 years so to send template letter that did not even reflect her individual circumstances such as different meeting date was quite inadequate - Found process respondent followed not fair and reasonable - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – No contributory conduct - Authority accepted applicant attempted to mitigate loss and was eventually successful in obtaining alternative employment – Reimbursement of lost wages of $10,000 awarded – Found applicant’s evidence about compensation somewhat limited – Applicant claimed suffered financial difficulties and was upset that employees of lower rank retained their jobs - $5,000 compensation appropriate - Grading and fleshing role |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($10,000) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A;Interpretation Act 1999 s17;Interpretation Act 1999 s18;Interpretation Act 1999 s19 |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington, Taranaki and Nelson Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079 ; [1991] 1 NZLR 151 ; (1990) 3 NZELC 97,985 ; (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843;Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZEMPC 102;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] 1 ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_69.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |