|
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Edmonds v Allied Petroleum (NI) Ltd
22 Jan 2008, G J Wood, WA 6/08, (10 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Applicant alleged position not surplus to requirements - Respondent began restructuring process when acquired other operations - Planned to consolidate administration and considered remaining work would be at lower level - Applicant did not think proposed positions differed from current role - Believed she should receive redundancy payout and be rehired in new position - Applicant refused to apply when roles advertised as felt would be accepting positions were different - Also refused to be interviewed for new position as considered respondent already knew about her - Other internal applicant appointed and applicant given notice of termination - Compressing of three original roles into two lower level positions made it justifiable for respondent to conclude new role substantially different from applicant's supervisory role - Applicant alleged disparity of treatment compared to other staff who were restructured and retained employment - Other staff had agreed changes with respondent - No disparity of treatment - While applicant may consider appointment of other worker unfair, responsibility was hers as did not apply for position - Redundancy implemented fairly - Dismissal justified - Administration Supervisor
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Jinkinson v Oceania Gold (NZ) Ltd
17 Jan 2008, P Cheyne, CA 5/08, (9 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - Casual employment agreement - Applicant worked on consistent basis following roster but at times was told no work available and did not work or get paid for those periods - Not paid when took other days off - Applicant casual employee - Respondent proposed combining number of positions into new roles - Applicant not appointed to new position - Employment terminated despite new positions remaining vacant - Genuine redundancy - Even if applicant right to refute not being offered new position, did not change fact original role redundant - Not a case about selection for redundancy - Employment in original position to end once respondent decided to disestablish position - Criteria used to appoint people to new positions not relevant to decision to disestablish original role and not required to be disclosed - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Respondent did not arrange for applicant to be told of dismissal in circumstances where support person could be present - Aware applicant expected to be offered new position and would be dismissed - Breach resulted in avoidable stress - Grievance better seen as unjustified disadvantage - Grade controller
Result: Application granted (Disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000) ; Application dismissed (Dismissal) ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
|
