| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 80/09 |
| Hearing date | 10 Feb 2009 |
| Determination date | 18 March 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | L Keys ; A Scott |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v Scott & Anor t/a Kaipara Meat Processors |
| Other Parties | Scott |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Three months’ employment – Summary dismissal – Respondent husband (“B”) and wife (“A”) operated butchery and home-kill – Applicant employed on three-month trial period as manager, reporting to B - Respondent raised concerns about applicant’s performance – B moved overseas so applicant moved to permanent position – Authority found applicant did not deliberately mislead respondent that had completed apprenticeship - Found parties misunderstood applicant’s qualifications – Applicant given warning and demoted due to poor performance - Authority found applicant ultimately responsible as manager for serious quality management concerns – Further issues regarding drinking at workplace – Respondent carried out restructuring and advised applicant’s management position disestablished but that could apply for new second in charge position – Applicant unsure if still employed in demoted position - Applicant raised grievance - Parties awaiting mediation when A saw applicant with respondent’s competitor – A summarily dismissed applicant, claiming in breach of confidentiality clause in employment agreement – Authority found applicant entitled to meet with competitor of respondent to seek alternative employment when employment with respondent at risk – Found no evidence applicant passing on information – Found A did not give applicant notice of specific allegations and likely consequences, allow opportunity to respond, and consider explanation – A’s actions met none of minimum procedural criteria – Dismissal substantively and procedurally unjustified – REMEDIES – Applicant found work three months after dismissal – Authority found applicant did not sufficiently mitigate losses – Eight weeks lost wages appropriate – Found employment would not have lasted any longer due to ongoing performance issues – Found applicant entitled to feel aggrieved when removed from management role without consultation, told position disestablished and summarily dismissed after raising grievance – Applicant produced little evidence of impact of dismissal – Authority considered respondent’s poor financial position – Moderate compensation award appropriate – No contributory conduct – A and B jointly and severally liable for payments to applicant - Butchery manager |
| Result | Application granted (dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($7,230.80)(8 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 80_09.pdf [pdf 36 KB] |