| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 333 |
| Hearing date | 23 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 26 July 2011 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | D Jacobson ; A Hopkinson |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Halse v Connors Windows Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent – Respondent claimed redundancy justified – Respondent Managing Director (“S”) sent letter to applicant confirming discussion regarding applicant purchasing shares in respondent –S withdrew offer to sell shares to applicant – Respondent experienced deterioration in market conditions – Applicant advised by S that restructuring sales roles due to travel costs and associated downtime and benefit of having sales representative located elsewhere – Applicant told S proposal not genuine and related to ongoing issues between them – Applicant attended meeting to discuss proposal – Applicant claimed not allowed to discuss detail of proposal or alternatives and so left meeting – S claimed lengthy discussion about proposal – S claimed applicant said unprepared to relocate for new sales role – S agreed to provide additional information to applicant and set up another meeting for applicant to respond to proposal – Applicant claimed S refused to provide additional information – S claimed sent applicant report setting out proposed selection criteria and other information not relevant – Applicant sent report to S setting out six alternatives options – S considered report – S advised applicant before final decision had to carry out further cost-benefit analysis – S decided applicant’s position to be disestablished – Applicant told to apply for new sales role – Authority found motive for restructuring was cost savings in light of deteriorating sales – Found redundancy genuine – Found respondent adopted thorough and fair consultation process – Found respondent reasonable to conclude redeployment not viable option – Dismissal justified – No disadvantage – Salesperson |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Son Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW [1991] NZLR 151;Simpson Farms v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_333.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |