Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 46/07
Hearing date 13 Sep 2006
Determination date 21 February 2007
Member J Scott
Representation T Skinner ; P Akbar
Location Auckland
Parties Van der Walt v Able Metal Products Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Summary dismissal - Applicant recent immigrant - Appointed to senior management position at respondent after recommended by recruitment agency - One month probationary period - Respondent claimed quickly apparent applicant seriously misrepresented his skills and not suitable - In response respondent gave applicant small sections of work so problems could be identified and dealt with, and information overload avoided - No improvement - At meeting director advised believed applicant misrepresented skills and abilities - Told would conduct review and if not satisfactory may result in termination - Applicant failed to complete documentation work - Advised employment terminated, but offered sales position with probationary period on reduced salary - Director had concerns about performance in sales position - When applicant denied unpaid leave, left and did not return - Told if did not return could be dismissed - Respondent claimed applicant abandoned employment - Applicant claimed never agreed to terms of sales position, and told if did not accept reduced salary should leave - Personal grievance related to first dismissal - Respondent's evidence preferred where disputed - Applicant misrepresented skills and experience - However, respondent failed to assess applicant's suitability prior to appointment - Respondent not required to provide skills training - However, more formalised and lengthy period of skills assessment and induction, and longer period to improve required - Inappropriate to dismiss applicant without discussing failure to complete job - First dismissal unjustified - Authority found applicant, having initially objected to dismissal, agreed to new position and worked in accordance with it - Agreement remedied any employment relationship problems - No dismissal - Had final termination been before Authority, would have found dismissal unjustified - Respondent should have put concerns to applicant and given opportunity to explain - Applicant knew respondent entitled to decline leave - Deliberately refused lawful and reasonable instruction and breached explicit house rule - Knew could result in instant dismissal - Contributory conduct would have disallowed remedies - Fitter/welder/fabricator supervisor
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: aa 46_07.pdf [pdf 45 KB]