| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 188 |
| Hearing date | 6 Sep 2011 |
| Determination date | 30 August 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | K Tohill, M Flannery ; J Bird |
| Location | Alexandra |
| Parties | McAlevey v Molyneux Park Charitable Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found Applicant’s performance not so poor to justify truncated warning process – Found applicant did not have opportunity to respond to all allegations – Found applicant did not have chance to address all decision makers - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct - Reimbursement of wages - Parties to determine quantum - $10,000 compensation appropriate - Groundsman |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as groundsman. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant involved in preparation and maintenance of cricket pitch and practice facility. Pitch required to maintain warrant of fitness (“warrant”) to host first class cricket. Applicant claimed warrant retention not requirement of job. Applicant’s employment agreement (“EA”) stated before entering disciplinary process employee would be given reasonable opportunity to improve performance. Two years after being employed by respondent applicant called to meeting regarding poor pitch reports. Meeting led to applicant receiving support from New Zealand Cricket’s Turf Manager (“C”). Pitch reports improved following meeting. Respondent claimed made clear to applicant maintenance of warrant crucial. Formal performance review of applicant stated respondent happy with state of grounds. Following season saw poor pitch results and first class warrant lost. Formal employment meeting held and applicant told warrant lost partially due to applicant’s actions. Respondent claimed outcome of meeting to support applicant in role. Respondent claimed made clear to applicant if warrant not regained risk to applicant’s employment. Trial game arranged to test pitch. Pitch gained satisfactory grade but not above satisfactory grade required for new warrant. C claimed difficult to have confidence in applicant. Applicant advised of formal employment meeting attended by four of respondent’s seven members. No mention in meeting notes of possible disciplinary action or specific allegation relating to performance issues. C not present at meeting. Applicant dismissed. Dismissal letter cited applicant’s performance over previous three years, including recent trial game.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant’s EA required giving of assistance prior to commencement of stepped warning process. Pitch rated satisfactory and applicant’s performance not so poor as to justify truncated warning process. Historic concerns not discussed at final meeting where discussion limited to preparation for and outcome of trial game. No evidence New Zealand Cricket’s loss of trust discussed at meeting. Applicant did not have opportunity to respond to all allegations. Respondent members divided on reasons for applicant’s dismissal. Applicant did not have chance to address all decision makers. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant reimbursement of lost wages, parties to determine quantum. $10,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted; Reimbursement of wages (parties to determine quantum); Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA - ERA s103A - ERA s124 – ERA s128(2) – Interpretation Act 1999 - Interpretation Act 1999 s4 - Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Ioane v Waitakere City Council [2003] 1 ERNZ 104 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_188.pdf [pdf 183 KB] |