Tyre fitter awarded $32,000 in lost wages and compensation

A Christchurch tyrefitter has been awarded more than $30,000 in compensation and lost wages .Photo / 123RF

A Christchurch tyre fitter has been awarded more than $32,000 in lost wages and compensation for being laid off, five months after new owners took on the business where he had worked for a decade.

Nigel Wootton began as a part-time tyre fitter for Roadrubber Tyres in 2010. The business was taken on by new owners in October 2019, at which point Wootton remained working there, 30 hours a week.

Wootton was made redundant in March 2020. He lodged a personal grievance two months later, his reasons including that it was unjustified, and that the decision was pre-determined and driven by an ulterior motive.

Wootton was reluctant to alter his hours of work, which was a topic raised informally at the end of a 90-day trial period, activated at the time the business changed hands. At the time he was approached, Wootton also raised the topic of his pay, which has remained at $20 an hour for several years, the Employment Relations Authority noted in the decision released last month.

A few weeks later the company's new workshop manager approached Wootton as he was leaving work, "grabbing him by the shoulder and insisting he would have to start working extra hours, starting the following day".

Wootton sought advice and requested a formal meeting to discuss the situation. It was some days before the business owner scheduled a meeting, after seeking legal advice. In the meantime, Roadrubber employed someone in the store and an additional tyre fitter to work from 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and every other Saturday.

The ERA found Roadrubber had not sufficiently demonstrated it was a genuine redundancy situation. Photo / Warren Buckland

The ERA said in its decision that in response to Wootton's request for a formal meeting, the business owner Aaron McCloy changed tack and decided he would restructure the role. The proposal centred only on Wootton's role and involved what the consultation document described as his "part-time position being disestablished and a full-time position being created".

The ERA said efforts to imply the consultation involved others were misleading.

The newly created position offered hours of work of 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, with an additional requirement to work every second Saturday from 9am to 2pm, with no offer of increased or additional remuneration.

The business said a full-time worker was a better fit for its needs. It had considered hiring another part-time worker but said the benefits were greater in having someone full time. ERA member David Beck said that while impressive in scope, the consultation document contained no comparative financial information or sales data despite mentioning "increased volume of work" as a reason for the changes. Wootton indicated by email in March he was prepared to work 9am to 4 pm each day and would consider Saturday work if his hourly rate increased to $24 with a penal provision of time and a half for working Saturdays.

Suzanne McCloy in her written evidence said they were happy with Wootton's work, wished to retain him and looked forward to another meeting to "explore the offer further" but that they were not going to accept his offer because it "did not provide for the required increase in hours and he was asking for a significant increase in his hourly rate (20 per cent plus) which we were not prepared to pay".

In March, following a meeting to try to resolve matters, Wootton was handed a letter which the ERA described as effectively an ultimatum, in that if he chose not to accept changes to his position, his employment would be terminated by redundancy.

After more brief correspondence, Wootton confirmed he would not work the additional hours, and he received a text from McCloy saying: "Thanks for confirming I will arrange your final pay and email you. All the best for the future".

Wootton, who was provided one week's pay in lieu of notice, then signalled a personal grievance through an advocate's letter of May 24, 2020.

The ERA found that Roadrubber had not sufficiently demonstrated it was a genuine redundancy situation.

"My view is that Roadrubber did not act as a fair and reasonable employer could in all of the circumstances in concluding Mr Wootton's position was surplus to their ongoing requirements and failed to reasonably engage on alternatives to redundancy."

The ERA found Mr Wootton was unjustifiably dismissed and was entitled to remedies including $14,400 for six months' lost earnings, and $18,000 in compensation for the evident "significant impact" on Wootton as a result of what happened, including the "deep hurt and humiliation" caused by how he was treated.

The ERA said given the circumstances, including that Wootton did not act in a blameworthy or culpable manner that gave rise to his grievance occurring, a reduction in remedies was not warranted.

"Although Mr Wootton had a reciprocal duty to be active and communicative and responsive, and he did not positively engage at the second meeting I find he cannot be expected in the distressing context of how the restructuring was enacted and how his former employer engaged with him, to be held blameworthy for his actions.

“This was a redundancy that normally is regarded as a ‘no fault’ termination of employment.”

*The company changed hands again in January 2023, after the ERA decision.