| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 107 |
| Hearing date | 10 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 July 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | M Flannery ; D Rhodes |
| Location | Cromwell |
| Parties | Culling v Vine-Tech Contracting Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant’s position surplus to requirements and dismissal justifiable redundancy – Viticulturist (“S”) concerned about applicant could not perform duties because part time hours meant not at work when other staff started and finished and applicant had various absences from work – Applicant claimed S rejected applicant’s request for full time hours – Applicant claimed S said applicant no longer supervisor – Applicant sought increase in hours from co-owner (“P”) – P claimed applicant wanted more time with children – P suggested applicant become casual labourer – P advised applicant respondent’s needs changing and needed to make changes to supervisor job description to make position more flexible – Job description presented at meeting – Applicant refused to accept supervisor position as did not want flexible hours and did not have requisite experience – Applicant also rejected casual vineyard worker position – Applicant dismissed – Parties agreed applicant employed on fixed term agreement – Authority found respondent failed to substantively justify redundancy – Authority rejected P’s view only altered job description and not employment agreement – Found alterations to hours affected earnings which were integral to employment agreement not job description – Found respondent’s actions response to concerns about applicant’s ability to perform duties and content of employment agreement rather than doubts about whether position fit within respondent’s business – Found redundancy not genuine – Found procedural issues need not be examined as redundancy not justified – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found applicant not entitled to reimbursement of lost wages for remainder of fixed term as commenced new job and no award should be made beyond that date – Found applicant had no intention of honouring fixed term agreement - $2,400 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – $3,000 compensation appropriate |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,400) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Bilderbeck v Brighouse Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 74;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] ERNZ 739;Wattam v Vine-Tech Contracting Limited [2011] NZERA Christchurch 106;Williams v AG [1999] 2 ERNZ 457 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_107.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |