| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 26/05 |
| Hearing date | 15 Feb 2005 |
| Determination date | 17 February 2005 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | T MacKinnon ; M O'Brien |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Leevers v Drake Personnel (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Applicant attended meeting five working days after completion of training and told to improve but that job not at stake - Five days later advised of meeting to discuss poor performance and that job potentially at stake - Summarily dismissed at meeting due to alleged refusal by applicant to accept need to improve - Law required respondent to allow reasonable period for improvement - Time allowed objective measure of performance - Respondent deliberately denied applicant opportunity to improve - No evidential basis for claim that applicant refused to accept need to improve - Respondent's allegations about tone and flavour" of applicant's comments at meeting not supported by evidence of applicant's actual language - Process entirely unfair - Conclusions reinforced by employment agreement which provided that dismissal for poor performance could occur "only after...sufficient warning" - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Impact of dismissal mitigated by quick success finding alternative employment - However humiliation unnecessarily extended by respondent's refusal to undertake mediation until matter filed with Authority - No contributory conduct - Customer services consultant" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($4,477.20) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s123(c)(i);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Fowler v Air New Zealand Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 654;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659;W & H Newspapers v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 26_05.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |