| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Wellington 154 |
| Hearing date | 10 Feb 2011 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2011 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | A Cuming ; R Foitzik |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Mahendran v Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed either unjustifiably dismissed or disadvantaged due to flawed redundancy procedure – Applicant amended application due to new information presented by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant estopped from changing application and remedies sought – Authority found appropriate for applicant to be able to refocus claim as new information should have been disclosed earlier and new focus covered in initial application – Respondent told applicant that if there were changes in the Office of the Prime Minister then there could be ramifications for applicant’s job – Incoming government significantly restructured clerical support to the mail and records system in the Office of the Prime Minister – Applicant’s position replaced by more highly graded ministerial assistant – Applicant not given any detailed information on nature and form of restructuring – Respondent advised applicant all reconfirmation and reassignment opportunities had been exhausted – Applicant made redundant – Found dismissal substantively justifiable for redundancy – Found respondent failed to consult with applicant about significant changes to job and therefore breached duty of good faith – Found unacceptable for respondent to fail to provide applicant with documentation which showed why position was to be made redundant and how applicant not most suitable person for new positions – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – Found applicant’s belief that had been improperly replaced had profound effect on applicant – Found respondent to be congratulated on efforts made to find applicant another job and for sensitive way accommodated applicant regarding family issues – Found compensation limited to lack of proper information and rushed lack of consultation - $5,000 compensation appropriate – Records Officer |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A;ERA s122;ERA s163 |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Fasteners Stainless Ltd v Thwaites [2000] ERNZ 739;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley [2011] NZEmpC 37 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Wellington_154.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |