Menu
Posted on: Jul 14, 2014
Employers who are considering making employees redundant must properly consider any proposals put forward by affected employees. If this is not done the employer will not have acted in a fair and reasonable manner and any dismissal for redundancy may be found to be unjustified.
An employer who failed to properly consider a job share proposal put forward by two employees facing redundancy and who ultimately dismissed the employees from their current positions for redundancy was held to have dismissed them unjustifiably. The employees had proposed that three positions be disestablished (one of the positions was a fixed term position due to expire shortly) and one new position be created that they would share.
The Employment Relations Authority said a fair and reasonable employer would not have required the employees to engage in a competitive process for the new position it had created. The Member said given that the employees had jointly proposed that they would be prepared to job share the new role further discussion about the practicality of this proposal should have been explored with the possible intention of redeploying the two incumbents to the new role on a job share basis.
Neither of the employees actually applied for the new role and the Authority declined to award any remedies for the unjustified dismissal.
Singh v Counselling Services Centre [2014] NZERA Auckland 179; Baker v Counselling Services Centre [2014] NZERA Auckland 178
Disclaimer
This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.
Posted on: Jul 14, 2014
An employer successfully sought recovery of training costs incurred by it in respect of a Diploma in Advanced Automation undertaken by an employee, who denied liability for the training costs.
Early in 2011, the employee put a proposal to the employer that it fund the Diploma at a cost of $8,144.15. The employer agreed to the request and paid for the diploma courses. In 2012, the employee asked for a pay increase. In July 2012, the employer had developed a training and development policy (the policy). The policy stated (inter alia):
If for any reason the Employee decides to terminate the employment relationship or the decision is made by the Employer to terminate the employment relationship for disciplinary reasons only within a given period of completing a training course, the Employee will be required to reimburse the Company for training costs as set out below:
a. Within 12 months full reimbursement of training costs.
b. Within 2 years 60% of training costs.
A new salary package for the employee was agreed, and the employer made it clear that the new package was dependent on the employee signing the policy and that the policy would apply to the training being currently undertaken for the Diploma. After taking time to consider the matter, the employee signed the agreement and the policy.
The new salary package and the policy took effect from 16 July 2012. On 22 February 2013, the employee resigned. On the employee’s final day of work (28 March 2013) the employer issued the employee an invoice for $8,144.15. The employee did not pay the sum and claimed the policy could not apply retrospectively to his diploma.
The Authority held that the policy was binding on the employee and was enforceable. It ordered the employee to pay the sums owed plus interest at 5%.
See Athenry Electrical Ltd v Wolmarans [2014] NZERA Auckland 210
Disclaimer
This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.
