An employee working for a transport company was
made redundant after the employee’s run became no longer viable.
The Employment Relations Authority held that
the redundancy was genuine, despite the employer hiring five others
following the employee’s dismissal. The nature of their roles were inconsistent
with the employee’s job description, and others filled vacancies which arose
after the employee was dismissed.
The ERA found that the employer’s dismissal process
was flawed. An employer is required, before making an employee redundant, to raise
its concerns with the employee, and must give them the opportunity to
respond. The employer must then consider the response with an open mind. Instead,
the employer dismissed the employee without any prior warning, and provided no supporting
details for the dismissal. The ERA noted that the employee’s ability to respond
was curtailed, and the receipt of a dismissal letter at the end of the meeting
indicated that a decision had effectively been made. The employer also failed
to look into other possible alternatives to the employee’s dismissal.
The ERA stated that these deficiencies
in the dismissal process could not be excused by reason of the resources
available to the employer as the employer had received professional advice
about how to address the situation.
The ERA held that the employee
was unable to recover lost wages as the redundancy was substantively
justifiable. Nevertheless, the
ERA awarded the employee $5,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of
dignity and injury to feelings.
Alan Knowsley
Employment Lawyer Wellington
No comments:
Post a Comment