| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 252/05 |
| Hearing date | 23 Jun 2005 |
| Determination date | 06 July 2005 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | D Bruce ; M Falloon |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Clements v Water Treatment Products Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Summary dismissal - Respondent alleged it justifiably dismissed applicant after unsuccessful three month probationary period - Trial period was specified in an amended employment agreement never produced to applicant - Applicant not subject to probationary period - Unfair to have presented applicant with letter outlining his faults and expected him to answer allegations immediately - Meeting only adjourned at applicant's request - Insufficient detail for applicant to respond to allegations - Directors only deliberated for five minutes after receiving applicant's response so was no real consideration - Allegations were instances of poor performance and required performance management - Respondent under duty to tell applicant of concerns and give reasonable opportunity to improve - Unjustified dismissal - Remedies - In absence of performance management process, Authority not prepared to find applicant's performance constituted blameworthy conduct - Well driller |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,300)(8 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s67;ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Dizac v Marvel Distributors Ltd unreported, J Scott, 21 June 2005, AA 228/05;Naughton v Vice-Chancellor University of Auckland unreported, J Wilson, 11 April 2005, AA 124/05;Nelson Air Ltd v New Zealand Airline Pilots Association [1994] 2 ERNZ 665;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 252_05.pdf [pdf 73 KB] |