| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 96 |
| Hearing date | 22 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 04 July 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | G Gallagher (in person) ; G Jones |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Gallagher v Marac Finance Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - Application to raise personal grievance out of time - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Applicant raised personal grievance three months after expiration of 90 day timeframe - Applicant claimed delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances and just to grant leave - Applicant claimed solicitor unreasonably failed to raise grievance in time - Respondent accepted delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances due to failures of solicitor - Respondent claimed not just to grant leave as contended grievance unlikely to succeed and applicant guilty of inordinate delay in seeking leave - Respondent accepted after hearing evidence that delays in seeking leave not of applicant's making - Authority found no inordinate delay in applicant seeking leave - Found necessary to assess merits of case - Respondent decided to restructure office due to collapse of other finance companies and decision to move to non-property related lending - Applicant's position reviewed as two sales staff and large portion of loans in portfolio property based and high risk - Found no evidence of ulterior motive but rather business decision - Applicant claimed redundancy process unfair - Chief Operating Officer (C") advised applicant at meeting of restructuring and possibility of position being made redundant - Applicant claimed did not receive all additional information requested after meeting - Found additional information would not have changed outcome - C sent letter to applicant setting out three possible outcomes of restructuring including redundancy and told applicant further discussion required before final decision - Applicant claimed did not know when C would discuss letter - Found applicant likely did know or could have found out - Applicant claimed told by another employee final decision made earlier - C claimed may have spoken to other employee about possibility of redundancy but denied made final decision - Applicant claimed told by C that decision already made but not final prior to discussion - C denied making statement - Found C's evidence more likely - Found process unlikely to be found unfair - Leave to raise grievance out of time declined - Financial Services Manager" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Raising PG |
| Statutes | ERA s114(1);ERA s114(4);ERA s114(5);ERA s115(b);Lawyer and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 r13.5 |
| Cases Cited | McMillan v Waikanae Holdings (Gisborne) Ltd (t/a McCannics) (2005) NZELR 402;Melville v Air New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 87;Melville v Air New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZCA 563 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_96.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |