Redundancy ruled to be fair

"His position was surplus to Agresearch's requirements and the termination of his employment was justifiable." Employment Relations Authority member Trish Mackinnon

A senior scientist has failed in his bid to get a payout from a Crown research institute after he claimed he was unjustly made redundant during a restructure.

The Employment Relations Authority found Agresearch followed a fair and reasonable process when terminating Dr Nicholas Ellison’s job.

Ellison was made redundant from Agresearch’s Palmerston North site in 2015, when the institute went through a restructure in which 78 staff members lost their jobs.

At the time, Agresearch chief executive Tom Richardson said changing needs in the science sector required the restructure.

In her decision, authority member Trish Mackinnon said Ellison had worked for Agresearch since 1984, mainly in the plant molecular biology position.

He was told in September 2015, in a meeting and by letter, Agresearch was looking at reducing the number of permanent scientists and technicians, and his role was proposed to go.

Ellison was invited to consultation, and given documents with all the background information about Agresearch’s proposal.

He gave a personal submission, saying he had specific responsibilities requiring his job to stay.

Various discussions took place, which ended with Ellison’s job being cut.

He was also told he could apply for any vacancy that came up at Agresearch during his notice period.

Ellison did not talk to human resources or management about redeployment or outplacement options, instead raising a personal grievance.

He acknowledged Agresearch was under pressure to reduce costs because private and government funding was falling, but he said they gave too little consideration into his role when culling it.

He also said the work he was doing had funding for the next 12 months, so he did not believe his employment was at risk.

Ellison said he had no contact with the people undertaking the redundancy review until he was told his job was gone.

However, evidence from Agresearch stated there was no prospect of more funding coming in for the work Ellison specialised in.

Mackinnon said Agreserach made attempts to talk to Ellison about what was happening during the consultation phase.

While they should have written a letter to him when he did not engage, there was nothing wrong with the process, she said.

‘‘I find the consultation process allowed Dr Ellison a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard on the proposal affecting his role.’’

While the funding was there for the next 12 months, there was no evidence Ellison was essential to finishing the one remaining step in the contract, Mackinnon said.

‘‘I do not doubt Dr Ellison’s commitment to his work and his desire to see it through’’, Mackinnon said.

‘‘[However], he did not have an unassailable right to continue that work until the expiration of the contract.

‘‘His position was surplus to Agresearch’s requirements and the termination of his employment was justifiable.’’

As Ellison’s claim failed, Mackinnon did not have to consider a counterclaim being made by Agresearch.

If the authority had found Ellison was unjustifiably dismissed, Agresearch was to try to claim back Ellison’s redundancy payout.