| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 398/05 |
| Hearing date | 26 Sep 2005 |
| Determination date | 07 October 2005 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | F Sabbineni ; V Kerridge |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Phillips v AMPT Ltd t/a AMPT Studio |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Had received written warning - Alleged number of issues with applicant: Poor personal presentation, clients complaint that applicant presented as depressing and lethargic, failed to open gym on time and was late with appointments, constantly talked to clients about personal problems - Applicant not a credible witness - While respondent had raised performance concerns with applicant during employment, was never put on unequivocal notice that unless performance improved, job would be in jeopardy - Written warning was non specific as to respondent's precise concerns and how to improve - In respect to complaint that led to dismissal, respondent erred by addressing complaint with applicant without clear statement that complaint was being treated extremely seriously - Neither was applicant advised of right to representation - Should have gone back to complainant to verify complaint in light of applicant's explanation - Remedies - Contributory conduct 50 percent - COUNTERCLAIM - Respondent alleged applicant's performance had caused losses - Losses came about because respondent did not face performance concerns in timely and appropriate manner - Gym instructor |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,200 reduced to $2,600) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000 reduced to $1,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584 ; [1990] 3 NZLR 549;Auckland District Health Board v X [2005] 1 ERNZ 487 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 398_05.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |