| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 86/05 |
| Hearing date | 4 May 2005 |
| Determination date | 20 June 2005 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | P Horrocks ; D Rhodes |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Roland v Amalgamated Builders Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - No formal warning process undertaken - In fairness, applicant should have been explicitly warned - Respondent alleged conveyed to applicant from time to time dissatisfaction in a number of areas - However, applicant was not clear how dissatisfied respondent was until a few days before dismissal - Applicant admitted had made a couple of mistakes including one by underclaiming in a progress claim - Did not consider applicant's explanations dispassionately at meeting before dismissal - There was no fair trial of applicant's work performance which would have enabled respondent to conclude performance was so deficient that it justified dismissal - Short period of time between meeting and letter of dismissal suggestive of closed mind approach - No careful analysis of applicant's explanations - Substantial procedural flaws - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - Contributory conduct 20 percent - At meeting applicant did not seem to show any insight about the mistake he made underclaiming - Did not show an understanding about the cashflow effect for the company - Entitled to reimbursement of vehicle expenses - Senior quantity surveyor |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Reimbursement of expenses ($1,000)(Motor vehicle) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 86_05.pdf [pdf 38 KB] |