| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 173 |
| Hearing date | 27 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 09 November 2011 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | G Burness ; G Malone |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Halliday v South Pacific Meats Ltd |
| Summary | RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent as applicant’s direct report (“S”) remained employed by respondent when redundancies made - Respondent consented to applicant raising grievance outside 90 day period - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - Respondent claimed genuine redundancy situation – Applicant claimed should have been allowed to apply for residual roles before made redundant – Majority of business at respondent’s plant from single customer (“P”) – Respondent’s plant failed to renegotiate agreement with P and respondent decided to close plant – Applicant claimed before advised of plant closure had been told by respondent compliance staff levels would increase and proposed redundancy was shock – Applicant had difficulties with pregnancy and baby stillborn – Applicant saw respondent’s manager (“K”) about pregnancy and K gave applicant letter confirming redundancy – K claimed wanted to assist applicant and asked if applicant knew if would be eligible for paid parental leave – K claimed applicant said next day would be eligible for paid parental leave – Respondent denied pressured applicant to go on parental leave and claimed applicant only asked if could perform work for respondent as wanted to maintain contact with co-workers – Respondent claimed S made redundant but re-employed as casual employee to perform residual tasks – Respondent accepted casual arrangement continued longer than expected but claimed work performed by S as casual employee did not resemble earlier role - Authority found whether applicant adequately consulted should not be considered further as applicant did not raise issue - Found applicant’s claim based on second-hand information and innuendo and unable to provide evidence - Found respondent’s actions fair and reasonable in all circumstances – Respondent claimed applicant voluntarily took parental leave – Found as applicant on parental leave precluded from returning to work even as casual employee – Found applicant voluntarily took parental leave – Application dismissed - Compliance Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 Part 7A;Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 s71L(1)(b) |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_173.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |