| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 129 |
| Hearing date | 13 Dec 2011 |
| Determination date | 16 April 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Taylor (in person) ; P Roberts |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v Macmahon Contractors (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant’s role including planning and scheduling of equipment maintenance - Applicant claimed when employment commenced respondent had introduced computer-based system – Applicant claimed had difficulty with system and received little training from respondent – Respondent claimed applicant failed to obtain authorisation or record details of significant unanticipated costs incurred for equipment maintenance (“first incident”) – Respondent claimed applicant failed to complete planning documents or close off jobs as instructed – Investigation commenced – Applicant claimed supervisor responsible for first incident and limited information about required maintenance – Respondent raised other concerns about applicant’s performance – Applicant issued with written warning for first incident – Respondent sought applicant’s explanation for additional concerns including failing to close off jobs, follow instructions or obtain respondent’s authorisation of maintenance – Applicant claimed supervisor absent so unable to keep up with planning requirements – Applicant claimed not all respondent’s concerns serious performance issues and issues around respondent’s job completion records – Respondent claimed applicant’s explanations unacceptable - Applicant dismissed – Respondent claimed dismissal justified as serious misconduct – Authority found respondent had already dealt with first incident in written warning and remaining grounds for dismissal were applicant’s failure to follow procedure and address outstanding jobs – Found applicant dismissed for poor performance not serious misconduct - Found respondent failed to inform applicant what standard performance needed to reach and what timeframe applied – Found respondent failed to inform applicant failure to address outstanding jobs and follow instructions possible grounds for dismissal – Found respondent ought to have arranged another meeting when contacted applicant’s representative rather than dismissing applicant – Found respondent’s actions not those of fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 50 per cent contributory conduct - $11,250 reimbursement of lost wages - $3,750 compensation appropriate - Maintenance Planner |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (50%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($11,250) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,750) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128(3) |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_129.pdf [pdf 75 KB] |