ERA holds employers to a higher standard when they are interviewing redundant employees for a new role

An assistant social worker was made redundant after her workplace underwent significant restructuring. The employee was appropriately consulted about the disestablishment of her role, and was told to apply for the position of a youth worker under the new structure. The employee was unsuccessful in regaining employment.

The Employment Relations Authority held that the employer did not breach any terms of the employee’s collective agreement in regards to redeployment, and reconfirmation. The ERA accepted that at the time of the employee’s dismissal there were no other positions available into which she could have been redeployed. The ERA noted that redeployment into the youth worker role was not appropriate as it was significantly different from her previous position. Likewise, reconfirmation was not offered for the same reason.

The ERA therefore held that the employer was justified in carrying out an assessment exercise to gauge whether the employee was suitable for the youth worker role.

The ERA held that the selection process adopted was not one that a fair and reasonable employer could have carried out in all the circumstances. The ERA held that the employer did not undertake a thorough review of the employee’s attributes, capabilities and work performance in her previous role, and did not interview any of the employee’s previous managers or supervisors in relation to whether she would be an appropriate person for the position. Instead, strong emphasis was placed on her performance at the interviews. As a result, the employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged.

The obligations on the employer in this case are more onerous than when interviewing a potential new employee as the employer owes a duty of good faith to the employee already.

The ERA awarded $5,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.