| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 507 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jun 2011 |
| Determination date | 30 November 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | P Wicks ; J Latimer |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Ball v Anglican Trust for Women and Children |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant claimed Respondent Chief Executive Officer (“W”) said applicant’s role too big and would be suited to different role – Applicant claimed informed by W that role disestablished and would have option of applying for position within new structure – W claimed only told applicant that if proposal went ahead role would be disestablished – Applicant claimed W had predetermined outcome of purported proposal and which positions would be filled – W claimed did not know who would apply for roles at initial stage of process – Applicant told W believed consultation process was a sham and primary objective of restructure was removal of applicant from existing role – Applicant told respondent administration manager (“D”) that W had forgotten applicant was away during announcement of restructure and W apologised for how applicant had been informed – Applicant claimed W told D had deliberately planned timing of announcement of restructure to ensure applicant was absent – Applicant provided feedback to restructure proposal which contained criticism of W – W claimed no substance to allegations made by applicant – Applicant informed position disestablished – Applicant claimed respondent board member said did not want to discuss applicant’s concerns further and had full confidence in W – Respondent claimed applicant’s letter was fatal to applicant’s opportunity for ongoing employment – Authority found but for allegations made by applicant pertaining to perception of W it was more probable than not applicant would have been offered new position – Found occurrence that gave rise to applicant’s dismissal was presentation of letter to respondent board containing serious allegations against W – Found due to serious nature of allegations made against W it was incumbent on respondent to initiate investigation into them – Found respondent failed to communicate with applicant about possible sanctions or afford applicant opportunity to obtain representation and attempt to justify allegations made against W – Found respondent failed to observe basic principles of justice and fairness – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 100 per cent contributory conduct – Found given applicant’s perception of W and W’s response there was not sufficient remnant of trust and confidence remaining that would have allowed them to work together in future – Found had respondent’s failure to follow basic principles of justice and fairness not been present applicant’s dismissal would have been justified on basis that overall conduct of applicant deeply impaired basic trust and confidence that must exist in employment relationship – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent – Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide applicant with proper notice of prospect of employment ending as result of restructure – Applicant claimed respondent acted unfairly and unreasonably in terms of planning timing of announcement of restructure – Found applicant disadvantaged by sudden and unexpected manner by which restructuring proposal provided which led to disestablishment of applicant’s position – Found more probable than not W deliberately planned timing of informing applicant of restructuring proposal in order to coincide with applicant’s absence – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – $5,000 compensation appropriate – Clinical Director |
| Result | Applications granted ; Contributory conduct (100%)(unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000)(unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 425;Air New Zealand v V [2009] ERNZ 185;Auckland City Council v Hennessey (1982) ERNZ Sel Cas 4;BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_507.pdf [pdf 110 KB] |