| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 121 |
| Hearing date | 28 Oct 2010 |
| Determination date | 10 August 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | S Thomas ; R Webster |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Knapp v Hirequip Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant raised concerns with Branch Manager (“P”) about supervisor’s wife falsifying timesheets – Applicant claimed felt ostracised from supervisor – P claimed matter had nothing to do with redundancy decision – Employee hours capped at 40 hours per week and full time employee dismissed – Applicant invited to attend meeting about restructure – Applicant claimed no reference to what division any redundancy would come from – Applicant formed view position vulnerable – Applicant sent submissions about ideas for marketing and growing business – Applicant invited to attend further meeting – Applicant presented figures that showed applicant and supervisor on target to meet budget – Applicant invited to attend another meeting – Applicant informed position selected for redundancy – Applicant claimed discussed possibility of casual work – Applicant received payment in lieu of notice – Applicant instructed to approach agency about casual work – Applicant approached agency but informed thought inappropriate to take applicant back given redundancy – Applicant claimed Regional Manager Southern (“S”) advised happy for applicant to work for respondent on casual basis – Applicant contacted Human Resources about redundancy matters – Applicant discovered another person (“D”) working for respondent but not employed through agency – P claimed financial position of branch deteriorated – Authority found D worked considerably more hours than applicant thought might be available – Found respondent able to conclude able to manage without full time employee and flexibility of hours required to meet varying demand – Found D worked less hours than applicant’s 40 hours per week – Found could not properly conclude use of casuals increased after applicant’s redundancy – Found genuine need to review applicant’s hours – Found applicant never offered position with reduced hours before advised position redundant – Found unfair process prevented possibility of arrangement about hours – Found applicant did not know before decision made to make applicant’s position redundant that respondent had formed view applicant’s position not required – Found respondent breached consultation obligations – Found applicant confused about budget figures because applicant on target to meet budget – Found applicant given no information to properly consider whether would be prepared to continue working fewer hours for respondent – Respondent claimed applicant refused casual work – Found applicant understood hours of casual work only day or two per week and not in position to understand or sensibly consider offer – Found applicant had no representative present and not given advance notice of what meeting was about – Found respondent less than open with applicant about how applicant could work on casual basis – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found subsequently discovered misconduct could not be taken into account as contributory conduct – Parties to determine quantum of reimbursement of lost wages – Found applicant suffered considerable stress after redundancy and casual worker employed – $8,500 compensation appropriate |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (quantum to be determined) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZEMPC 102;Salt v Fell [2008] NZCA 128;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_121.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |