| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 54/04 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jun 2003 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2004 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; J Pearson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Kernohan v Asure New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Serious misconduct - Alleged failure to follow required procedures - Performance program instituted to ensure compliance with policies - Regular monitoring and feedback undertaken - Incident where applicant failed to communicate with co-worker - Reasonable time frame for improvement given - Informed failure to meet standards would result in issues becoming disciplinary matters - Dismissal open to fair and reasonable employer in circumstances - Non-publication order - Certain documents prohibited from publication - Meat inspector |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil NZ Ltd v NID Distribution Workers etc IUOW [1989] 3 NZILR 276 ; [1989] 3 NZLR 580;Ramankutty v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland unreported, Goddard CJ, 25 October 2001, AC 53B/01;Trotter v Telecom Corp of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |