| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 29/06 |
| Hearing date | 17 Jan 2006 |
| Determination date | 09 February 2006 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | NR Taylor (in person) ; C Patterson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v eCOM New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Respondent received complaints about applicant from clients, staff and major supplier - Sought to set up meeting with respondent - Delay in holding meeting until respondent supplied details of allegations to applicant - Respondent gave number of reasons for dismissing applicant but would have dismissed on basis of complaints alone - Respondent depended on maintaining good relations with its very few good customers and would have been in jeopardy if relationships compromised - While some of other reasons were not substantive grounds for dismissal it was clear that complaints were adequate grounds for termination - Authority did not accept applicant's submission that customer issues merely performance issues and not a reasonable reason" to dismiss - Clear breakdown of relationship of trust and confidence - Decision to dismiss one reasonable employer could have taken in circumstances - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Suspensions during delay before meeting held were unjustified - Remedies - No evidence of effect of suspensions so no award for humiliation and distress - DISPUTE - Applicant's individual employment agreement had clause that "performance incentive of 5% will be paid on all new business closed from new or existing clients" - Applicant contended he was entitled to performance bonus regardless of whether he had any involvement in closing of new business - Performance incentive that had nothing to do with performance contradictory - Logically performance had to be applicant's performance, not respondent's performance - Implied term - That payment of performance incentive contingent on applicant's efforts so obvious it went without saying - Leave reserved on matter of any arrears based on interpretation of clause - Business Development Manager" |
| Result | Application dismissed (dismissal) ; Application granted (unjustified disadvantage) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association [1992] 2 NZLR 209 ; [1992] 1 ERNZ 1163;Auckland Local Authorities Officers IUOW v Northcote Borough Council [1989] 2 NZILR 67;BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 52 ALJR 20;Courtalds Northern Spinning Ltd v Sibson [1988] IRLR 305;Madison Systems Ltd v Scott [1999] 2 ERNZ 154;NZ Baking Trades Employees' IUOW v Findlay's Gold Krust Bakeries [1989] 2 NZILR 633;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Zendel Consumer Products v Henderson [1992] 2 ERNZ 377 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 29_06.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |