| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed disadvantaged in relation to performance review (PR") and performance bonus ("PB") - Applicant achieved high ratings for performance in 2002 and 2003 period - Received full incentive payment - Parties agreed to base salary and "at risk" component - Delay in addressing PR did not mean performance agreement ("PA") or PR overlooked - Employment agreement varied to allow PR to be held annually rather than quarterly - Applicant resisted variation - PR for September quarter not carried out because proposal reviews be held annually still being developed - December quarter review did not go ahead because PA not finalised - Reviews to be subsumed in annual review carried out early in following year - Applicant claimed arrangement put to him without proper consultation - Applicant's input sought - Not deprived of right to be consulted - Applicant tendered resignation and accepted at risk component and PA criteria as worded - Applicant not entitled to full amount of bonus as did not work complete year and agreed to pro rating bonus - Applicant asked that assessment be reconsidered - However, did not indicate what matters should be taken into account - Argument emotional rather than reasoned - Board accepted recommendation of sub-committee that assessment not be changed - Applicant invited to make comments on how criteria had been met - Applicant failed to put case adequately to board - Failure to have independent body reconsider matter not unfair - Applicant's essential concern was relationship between pro-rating of bonus and having PR measured over shorter period than what was actually worked - Assessment regarding lease income not in accordance with parties’ agreement, to that limited extent applicant, had personal grievance - Remedies - Limited basis for personal grievance meant compensation award not appropriate" |