| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 328 |
| Hearing date | 9 Nov 2010 - 10 Nov 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 25 July 2011 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | P Skelton ; C Blake |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sanders v Ingham Motor Holdings Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy not genuine and procedurally unfair - Respondent undertook restructuring and applicant’s position disestablished – Respondent created new position to take over applicant and co-worker’s (“X”) positions – X successfully applied for new position and applicant’s employment terminated – Applicant accepted consulted by respondent about restructure and had opportunity to give feedback – Applicant claimed new position essentially old job with different title and told by co-worker majority of work performed by successful candidate was same work previously performed by applicant – Authority found new position split duties of two old roles evenly and new role different from two old roles - Applicant claimed not told selection criteria and respondent unreasonably assessed suitability of candidates – Found applicant given job description and told selection based on candidates’ ability to perform new role – Found no notes taken at interviews and respondent did not attempt to score candidates – Respondent claimed ‘not a lot in it’ but X had good administrative skills and better knowledge of new system – Respondent claimed as position a new role and applicant’s previous role disestablished had no further obligation to consult about selection criteria – Found respondent did meet obligations when decided to merge positions but applicant entitled to access information about whether would be redeployed to new role – Found applicant not told how much weight placed on candidates’ knowledge of new system, extent personal qualities were taken into account or remuneration package for new role – Found respondent failed to provide information relevant to applicant’s continuation of employment – Applicant claimed respondent’s decision unsustainable as had more skills and experience than X – Found open to respondent to appoint X instead of applicant - Finance company (“M”) provided finance facility to respondent and respondent’s customers - M previously told respondent dissatisfied with quality of information in finance applications received from respondent’s customers – Complaint lodged alleging applicant had withheld important detail from finance applications and M threatened respondent with significant costs if matter not rectified – Respondent commenced disciplinary proceedings and arranged meeting with respondent, applicant and M – M agreed if applicant given further training no further action would be taken – Applicant told respondent unfairly accused and entitled to apology - Respondent claimed did not respond and no training commenced due to restructure – Applicant claimed redundancy motivated by respondent’s need to maintain relationship with M – Respondent claimed M’s complaint did not affect redundancy decision – Found no evidence respondent improperly influenced by perception applicant had damaged respondent’s relationship with M – Found in all circumstances decision to appoint X fair and reasonable – Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Found open to Authority to find grievance other than alleged and make award for poor redundancy process even where termination justified – Found respondent’s lack of feedback disadvantaged applicant - $5,000 compensation appropriate - Business Manager |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s4(1A)(c) |
| Cases Cited | Coutts Cars Ltd v Baguley [2001] ERNZ 660 ; [2002] 2 NZLR 533;Jinkinson v Oceania Gold (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZEMPC 102;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand [1993] 2 ERNZ 659;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley & Anor [2010] NZEMPC 37 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_328.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |