| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 438 |
| Hearing date | 6 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 07 October 2011 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | no appearance ; R Parmenter |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hegedus v Actronic Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed made redundant as criticised decisions and conduct of respondent’s managers – Respondent claimed applicant’s redundancy necessary due to global financial crisis – Three earlier investigation meeting dates were cancelled by applicant for various reasons – Applicant claimed could not afford to travel to New Zealand for investigation meeting but had travelled elsewhere recently - Authority found applicant showed no good cause for non-attendance and failed to give evidence could not afford travel costs – Applicant repeatedly requested to attend investigation meeting by video or telephone conference – Authority previously declined requests as credibility issues meant essential applicant attend in person – Authority previously granted applicant’s request that overseas witnesses attend by teleconference but applicant failed to take further action – Found applicant had not convinced Authority dismissal engineered for ulterior purpose – Respondent disestablished 14 positions from workforce of 65 employees – Respondent gave applicant review document setting out reasons for possible redundancy before decision made – Found respondent did not have ulterior motive and redundancy genuine due to financial crisis – Found respondent followed fair process, fully consulted with applicant about possible redundancy and gave applicant opportunity to comment before decision made – Found respondent considered alternative options and took steps to minimise effects of applicant’s dismissal – Applicant claimed respondent promised to relocate applicant to New Zealand if position was disestablished – Found respondent did not promise applicant could return to New Zealand if position disestablished – Found applicant had failed to establish respondent did not act as fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances - Dismissal justified - Business Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s174;ERA Second Schedule cl12 |
| Cases Cited | GN Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington Caretakers IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843;Savage v Unlimited Architecture Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 40 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_438.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |