| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 169/08 |
| Hearing date | 12 Dec 2007 |
| Determination date | 06 May 2008 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | D Wackrow ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sengupta v University of Auckland |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Over several months respondent raised numerous concerns with applicant regarding non-performance of work and work not performed to required standard - Parties attended mediation with university mediator - Applicant issued with two warnings before dismissal - Applicant not given notice of subject of initial meeting - Respondent later apologised for this - Failure did not undermine eventual dismissal - Applicant raised number of issues regarding relationship with manager - Respondent properly investigated and concluded applicant’s concerns unfounded - In addition, placed responsibility for ongoing performance management with different manager - Range of duties made clear to applicant when hired - Duties expected of applicant within scope of job description and standards expected reasonable - Respondent spelt out required standards, pointed out where applicant failed to meet those standards and offered him numerous opportunities to improve - Applicant given every opportunity to meet required standard before dismissal - Dismissal justified - Office manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Ramankutty v Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland unreported, Goddard CJ, 25 October 2001, AC53B/01;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited [1993] (2) ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 17 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 169_08.pdf [pdf 59 KB] |