| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 303 |
| Hearing date | 30-31 Jan 2013 , 18-19 Apr 2013 |
| Determination date | 17 July 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | J Forret ; D France |
| Parties | Wilton v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Whether respondent breached good faith – Multiple issues raised with applicant’s performance including computer literacy and inappropriate correspondence – Further issues with applicant’s performance related to isolation procedures - Applicant put on performance improvement plan (“PIP”) – PIP required improvement in three focus areas - Applicant’s performance failed to improve – Applicant’s performance in several practical exercises unsatisfactory – Whether practical exercises designed for applicant to fail - Whether respondent sufficiently investigated concerns, provided reasonable opportunity for applicant to improve and genuinely considered that applicant had satisfied second and third focus areas - Applicant dismissed - Caustic and kilns operator |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant should have checked alleged instruction with another operator. Applicant “away with the birdies” during practical exercise. Evidence suggests applicant’s performance defective. Dismissal substantively justified. Probable respondent under false impression applicant was competent. Applicant aware assistance available. Reasonable opportunity given for applicant to improve performance. No evidence of bias. Second and third focus areas did not have same health and safety consequences as first focus area. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A - ERA s103A(2) – ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland etc Local Authorities Officers IUOW v Mt Albert CC [1989] 2 NZILR 651;Ramankutty v Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland unreported, Goddard CJ, 25 October 2001, AC53B/01;Trotter v Telecom Corp of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_303.pdf [pdf 184 KB] |