| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 119 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 05 August 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | D Beck ; P Zwart |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cummings v Wyma Engineering (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent Managing Director (“S”) claimed large reduction of orders and under pressure from rising New Zealand dollar – Respondent undertook series of cost cutting exercises – Respondent ranked staff against five criteria to determine positions most suitable for redundancy – Parties disputed whether applicant told purpose of ranking staff for redundancy – Applicant included in group of nine employees that had lowest rankings – Applicant told whilst on bereavement leave that eight of ranked employees had been made redundant – Applicant attended numerous meetings with respondent Global Manufacturing Manager (“W”) – Applicant claimed told by W position would not be disestablished – W claimed retaining team leader role but applicant’s position not safe – Applicant had chance of temporary work and asked W if could leave immediately – W gave applicant redundancy acceptance form – W unsure why applicant had received low scores – Applicant told W wanted to stay – W discussed matter with S and decided to progress redundancy – Applicant attended meeting without being told to obtain representation – Applicant advised position redundant – Applicant annoyed that letter of redundancy referred to generic factory staff not team leader role – Respondent received substantial new orders after redundancies made – Authority satisfied redundancy motivated by genuine business operational requirements due to reduction in orders – Found new orders after redundancies made were unexpected – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have concluded applicant’s position genuinely redundant at time applicant dismissed – Found respondent made no decision as to how many team leaders required – Found respondent focused on applicant rather than whether position was surplus – Found procedure adopted unfair and consultation inadequate as not known what would happen with team leader positions – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found unreasonable for applicant to take up causal work offer at previous hourly rate by respondent – Three weeks reimbursement of wages appropriate – Applicant claimed became stressed and doubted if had skills to do engineering – Found applicant genuinely confused about redundancy and that impacted on confidence about skills – Found relevant that respondent offered causal work and applicant found temporary work reasonably quickly – $6,000 compensation appropriate – Team Leader |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (3 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Mathews v Bay of Islands Building Company Ltd t/a Pioneer Homes unreported, Colgan J, 4 March 1998, AEC12/98;NZ Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] ERNZ 739;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_119.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |