| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 249/06 |
| Hearing date | 11 Apr 2006 |
| Determination date | 24 July 2006 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | G Norton ; P Tremewan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sullivan v Maxwell Marine Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Five step disciplinary process in employment agreement - Although respondent did not establish counselling provided as first step, any procedural error cured by subsequent meetings - Over seven months applicant received five written warnings and attended several disciplinary meetings - No procedural error or unfairness in labelling three warnings final" - Genuine reasons for performance concerns - However, applicant given insufficient time and detail to prepare responses to examples given in disciplinary meetings - Respondent moved too far, too fast, particularly with last three warnings - So close together no real opportunity for improvement or proper preparation - Not clear applicant aware at start of last meeting termination could result - No opportunity to comment on decision to dismiss - Dismissal unjustified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant's allegations demoted and discriminated against dismissed - Authority did not accept dismissal engineered to avoid paying redundancy entitlement - No disadvantage - Remedies - Authority not satisfied from applicant's evidence and general buoyancy of labour market that lost wages sufficiently mitigated - Contributory conduct 50 percent - Length of service not specified - Team leader" |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (8 weeks reduced to 4 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000 reduced to $1,000) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Rankin v Attorney General in respect of the State Services Commissioner [2001] ERNZ 476;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 249_06.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |