| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 41 |
| Hearing date | 7 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 22 March 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | G Burness ; G Martin |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Fairbairn v Millies Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent bar sustained damage as consequence of first Christchurch earthquake – Respondent told staff in meeting bar would close until further notice – Two witnesses confirmed respondent told staff to look for new jobs and referred to existence of insurance to cover wages – Respondent claimed said optimistic would be able to continue to pay staff and business would eventually reopen – Applicant and partner (“B”) claimed not told to look for other work and told would be informed if situation changed – Authority found likely respondent told staff to look for alternative employment and made clear wanted to retain all staff if possible – Found even if applicant not told to look for new job did not mean redundancy unfair – Respondent claimed unable to continue to pay applicant – Applicant claimed because not told situation changed, surprised when position made redundant – Applicant continued to be paid for 10 weeks but not required to work in effort to fulfil respondent’s obligations – Respondent claimed used $30,000 savings to pay staff – Found obvious business imperative in declaring staff redundant – Redundancy genuine – Dismissal justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Bar able to reopen after repairs made – Applicant only former member of full time staff not re-employed due to significant downturn in business – Found decline in business real – Found nothing unfair or unreasonable about respondent making decision not to re-employ applicant – Applicant claimed not re-employed because of allegations of theft as servant – Respondent claimed prior to earthquake concerned applicant stealing from business – Found no steps taken in respect of allegation – Found respondent let guard down and made damaging allegation in text message to B – Applicant claimed remained unemployed because of suggestion applicant dishonest – Authority accepted applicant’s evidence did not take money from business – Found applicant suffered disadvantage as respondent allowed unsubstantiated allegations about applicant to circulate in small community – Found respondent did not act maliciously – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Parties to determine quantum of remedies |
| Result | Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Parties to determine quantum of remedies ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_41.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |