| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 98 |
| Hearing date | 12 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 08 July 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | M Round ; S Leftley |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Baynes v Radius Residential Care Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed by respondent - Respondent claimed applicant made redundant after procedurally fair restructuring process - Respondent claimed in order to comply with review requirements within financial restraints nursing hours halved - Authority found reduction of nursing hours for genuine reason and no ulterior motive – Found applicant did not challenge underlying reason for review – Applicant and co-worker (“H”) told respondent’s Chief Operating Officer (“T”) meeting with them to discuss nursing requirements – Applicant told ongoing employment could be affected and could bring support person – Applicant claimed told by respondent’s manager (“A”) before meeting did not need to contact union and therefore did not bring representative to any meetings – Applicant claimed disadvantaged as did not have representative at second meeting – Found A told applicant did not think necessary applicant contact union but only referring to parties’ first meeting – Found applicant not disadvantaged by relying on A’s view did not need representative at first meeting – Applicant dismissed and advised no alternative position available – Applicant claimed decision predetermined as respondent told H before second meeting applicant would be made redundant – Found allegation decision predetermined not made out - Applicant claimed dismissed as respondent thought applicant annoying employee after laid complaints about co-worker – T claimed A never mentioned any concerns raised by applicant and did not see applicant as difficult employee – Found respondent’s alleged view of applicant did not exist and did not affect decision making process – Applicant claimed not told why H selected and respondent failed to provide counselling or support – Found no unfairness to applicant in selection process – Found failure to provide counselling not unjustified action by respondent – Found redundancy genuine - PENALTY - Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide wage and time records as requested – Respondent claimed failure to provide records oversight and provided when applicant made second request – Found failure to provide records not deliberate or wilful omission and records supplied when formal request made – No penalty - Nurse |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s115(b) |
| Cases Cited | Baynes v Radius Residential Care Ltd unreported, H Doyle, 8 October 2010, CA 194/10;Simpsons Farm Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_98.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |