| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 106 |
| Hearing date | 10 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 21 July 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | M Flannery ; D Rhodes |
| Location | Cromwell |
| Parties | Wattam v Vine-Tech Contracting Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed redundancy justifiable – Respondent claimed had numerous concerns about applicant’s performance – Respondent discovered applicant not qualified viticulturist – Applicant resisted respondent’s attempts to obtain formal qualifications – Respondent co-owner (“M”) claimed applicant arrived late to work and adopted overbearing attitude towards clients – Respondent hired new viticulturist (“S”) – Applicant claimed S took over large portion of functions – Respondent accepted considerably reduced applicant’s relationship with clients and returned applicant to tractor duties and dealing with compost production – Applicant claimed planned to establish compost operation as separate joint venture business with respondent but respondent resiled from earlier undertakings – Respondent denied entering any arrangement regarding compost operation with applicant – Respondent contemplated joint venture involving management of vineyard with applicant but later concluded applicant unable to perform agreed obligations – Applicant informed M of intention to take week off but did not confirm actual date - Applicant felt pressured by M to take leave immediately – Applicant agreed to take leave on specified dates – Respondent claimed applicant advised only willing to work specific hours – Applicant claimed comment related to one job only and continued to work normal hours – M claimed incident catalyst for review of companies operation – M set out alternative positions for applicant – Applicant claimed outcome predetermined and waste of time to offer any alternatives – Applicant informed position redundant – Authority found respondent focused on applicant’s performance as opposed to inquiry as to whether or not position still required – Found redundancy not genuine – Found applicant not adequately consulted as not informed of real issues respondent considered in decision – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – $7,961 reimbursement of wages appropriate – Applicant claimed losing job along with partner took toll on relationship – Found applicant and partner obtained replacement employment quickly and relationship under stress in any event – Found applicant deprived of possibility to address respondent’s concerns – $2,000 compensation appropriate – Viticulture Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,961.54) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] ERNZ 739 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_106.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |