| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 71/04 |
| Hearing date | 15 Apr 2004 |
| Determination date | 30 June 2004 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | S Zindel ; G Malone |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Polosak v Talley's Fisheries Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant responsible for inadequate quality control of catch of fish - Disciplinary process resulted in final written warning - Defendant failed to discuss view that applicant's drinking contributed to poor performance - Disciplinary procedure specified in employment agreement not followed - Poor performance warranted first written warning only - Departure from specified process not raised with applicant - Decision to impose final written warning not justified - Token compensation appropriate given applicant's contribution - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Further incident following final warning - Failure to follow specific instructions detrimentally affected quality of catch - Failings not sufficiently serious to justify dismissal - Poor performance not serious misconduct - Dismissal unjustified in absence of justified final written warning - Failure to mitigate loss by seeking alternative employment - No reimbursement of lost wages - Remedies reduced by 33 percent for contributory conduct - Fisheries worker |
| Result | Applications granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($500)(Unjustified disadvantage) ; ($7,500 reduced to $5,000)(Unjustified dismissal) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand Food Processing IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |