An employee was redundant before he even started work, the Employment Relations Authority recently heard.

Computer technology provider, IndeServe Limited, decided to recruit another web development team member. On 7 June 2001, it offered the position to Stephen Ford. The parties agreed that Mr Ford would commence work on 25 June 2001.

On 12 June 2001, the Company's Board of Directors passed a resolution that, amongst other things, costs were to be cut by $500,000. To achieve this, the Company decided to implement redundancies, including the cutting of staff numbers in the web development team.

The Company decided to select employees to be made redundant on the basis of "last on first off". On 15 June 2001, it telephoned Mr Ford, who at that time had not yet commenced work, and advised him that he was redundant. It later followed this advice up with a letter.

Mr Ford filed a personal grievance against the company for unjustified dismissal. The Employment Relations Authority upheld his claim. While the Authority accepted that the company had a genuine need to effect redundancies, it failed to treat Mr Ford fairly and reasonably. In particular, the Authority criticized the company for failing to properly consult with Mr Ford about his redundancy. While Mr Ford was the obvious choice for redundancy,

"the company, on this occasion, gave up an opportunity to properly address his legitimate human concerns. It gave away an opportunity to reassure [him] that the decision had nothing to do with him personally and everything instead to do with an unanticipated board directive . While swiftly addressing its own, legitimate need - to effect cost savings - the company failed to provide a similar duty of care to one of its latest recruits" Authority member, Denis Asher said.

The Authority ordered the company to pay Mr Ford the balance of the one months' pay owed under the notice provision of his employment contract, plus $6,500 compensation for humiliation and distress.