| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 43/06 |
| Hearing date | 16 Aug 2005 |
| Determination date | 20 February 2006 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | J Peebles ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Busch v Prime Television New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Applicant dismissed after not meeting targets for television advertising sales - Warning for attitude and behaviour and allegedly final warning for attitude and performance 15 months and 8ï¾½ prior to dismissal - Length of time between warnings reasonable due to nature of industry - Warnings concerned with different issues - Most recent warning was first regarding performance, not a final warning as expressed - Two warnings prior to dismissal not required in every situation but respondent purported to follow formal procedure so reasonable for applicant to expect two warnings - Targets not minimum performance standards - Targets not reasonable and increases to target arbitrary - Revenue generated against target not a fair or reasonable means by which to assess applicant's performance - Improvement in applicant's performance immediately prior to dismissal - Disparity of treatment - Applicant not only representative to experience decline in revenue or fail to meet targets but was only employee disciplined - Dismissal both procedurally and substantively unjustified - Remedies - Applicant claimed lost earnings of just $90 over three months - No award for reimbursement of lost wages - Little evidence of hurt and humiliation so Authority obliged to proceed cautiously - No contributory conduct - Sales representative |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Limited [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 43_06.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |