| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 221 |
| Hearing date | 17 Oct 2013 |
| Determination date | 23 October 2013 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | W Heal ; G Downing |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Brien v Rusbatch and Rusbatch t/a The Top Shop |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent noticed change in applicant’s attitude – Applicant challenged about mistakes – No explanation given – Whether applicant received formal warning – Applicant’s performance failed to improve – Four week performance improvement plan commenced – Applicant made errors while operating till – Further warning given – Warnings did not specify consequences of failure to improve – Staff and customers complained about applicant’s “stuff ups” – Applicant handed letter of dismissal – Applicant sought to complete shift - Shop assistant and kitchen hand |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Clear respondent failed to comply with procedural fairness. Applicant clearly informed of respondent’s displeasure. No suggestion applicant’s continued employment in jeopardy. Applicant entitled to expect performance improvement plan would be completed. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $3,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA - ERA s103A – ERA s124 - ERA s128(2) - Insolvency Act 2006 |
| Cases Cited | The Salad Bowl Ltd v Howe-Thornley [2013] NZEmpC 152;Young v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [2013] NZEmpC 131 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_221.pdf [pdf 162 KB] |