| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 271 |
| Hearing date | 23 Mar 2011 |
| Determination date | 23 June 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | G Froggatt ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McKinney v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Length of service 36 years – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed redundancy genuine – Respondent proposed new position which meant applicant’s position disestablished – Applicant advised position to be disestablished and invited to apply for new roles established or any other internal vacancy – Applicant’s application for new position unsuccessful and further information provided that operations structure remained under transition – Respondent set out letter was not notice of redundancy – Applicant encouraged to apply for other positions and use Employee Assistance Programme – Applicant claimed told in meeting that application unsuccessful and told redundant and had to hand in gear – Authority found applicant’s evidence mistaken – Found formal notice of redundancy received in letter after probable period of sick and annual leave – Applicant claimed offered to return to work but told not required – Found in regard to matters leading up to termination of employment, applicant’s evidence inconsistent and unreliable – Applicant claimed redundancy not genuine as little difference between applicant’s position and new positions – Applicant claimed no consultation over redundancy – Applicant claimed not offered redeployment or retraining – Applicant claimed not given any reasons why not appointed to new position – Respondent claimed positions substantially different – Found positions not exactly the same – Found new position had increased responsibility – New duty supervisor (“J”) previously held same position as applicant and claimed did the same work as in previous position – However, J claimed new position quite involved – Found respondent entitled to make business more efficient by disestablishing applicant’s position – Redundancy genuine – Found applicant received letter advising of restructure and invited to meeting – Found respondent made powerpoint presentation that explained reasons for restructuring and proposal – Found applicant adequately consulted – Found applicant’s claim not offered redeployment or retraining not supported by weight of evidence – Found parties simply failed to communicate with each other after applicant not appointed to new position – Found respondent could have made more effort given applicant’s long service – Found applicant not treated unfairly – Found applicant given reasonable response as to why not suitable for role – Dismissal justified – Operations Assistant |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW [1990] 2 NZILR 1079;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_271.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |