| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 50/06 |
| Hearing date | 15 Aug 2005 - 11 Oct 2005 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 24 February 2006 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | M Ryan ; J Rooney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pilcher v Fonterra New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant alleged bullying by manager and that by failing to rectify situation respondent did not provide safe and healthy workplace - While at times manager became frustrated with applicant's responses to situations and criticisms this could not be classed as bullying - Respondent took complaint seriously, conducting two separate investigations and reaching conclusions supported by fact - No unjustified action - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Ongoing performance issues - Numerous meetings regarding performance held during year prior to dismissal - Feedback provided by several managers - Received annual performance rating of needs improvement" - Applicant failed to take advantage of opportunity to comment and was placed on three month performance plan which required sufficient improvement to continue employment - Plan included fortnightly meetings to discuss progress - Fourth review meeting ended because of alleged behaviour of applicant's representative and HR manager indicated that final warning was in contemplation - Applicant did not respond, final warning was issued and applicant was advised that next review meeting would determine if employment continued - Applicant presented written explanations for performance issues at review meeting - At meeting arranged to discuss her explanations applicant submitted another written statement for consideration - Self-assessment unsatisfactory to respondent - Dismissed following further meeting to discuss applicant's statements - Applicant had full opportunity to respond to issues and have input into performance management process - Additional training provided and more than three months to demonstrate improvement - Not prejudiced by involvement of manager who was subject of disadvantage claim - Dismissal justified - Business Analyst" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23;Evans v Gen-i Ltd unreported, D King, 29 August 2005, AA 333/05;McGowan v Nutype Accessories Ltd [2003] 1 ERNZ 120;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 50_06.pdf [pdf 79 KB] |