| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 125/09 |
| Hearing date | 10 Dec 2009 |
| Determination date | 20 April 2009 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | C Eggleston ; SJ Neville |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sage v I Redelman & Son (NZ) Pty Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed following alleged poor performance – Respondent claimed applicant agreed to termination – Applicant attended meeting with respondent – Applicant not notified meeting disciplinary meeting – Respondent advised applicant final written warning for poor performance and dismissal if sales not increased – Applicant argued no previous warnings given and sale targets unreasonable – Respondent claimed applicant agreed to termination because applicant “belligerent” in saying no improvement possible – Respondent confirmed termination by email – Applicant raised personal grievance – Authority found dismissal procedurally unjustified – Found applicant did not agree to termination – Found applicant did not intend to resign because targets were not being achieved – Found applicant dismissed without written warnings issued, notice of purpose of meeting and opportunity for explanation not given – Found applicant’s performance acceptable and respondent’s expectations unreasonable - Authority noted respondent had limited knowledge of target market - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found no contributory conduct – Reimbursement of 15 weeks lost wages less sum of domestic purposes benefit received – Reimbursement of loss of company vehicle – Compensation of $8,000 appropriate – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for breach of good faith – Applicant claimed respondent attempted to “trick” applicant into accepting termination was by mutual agreement through payment of final pay by cheque – Authority found standard of proof not met – Penalty declined – COUNTERCLAIM – Penalty – Respondent sought penalty for failing to return confidential information – Applicant claimed no longer in possession of information and information in respondent’s database – Authority found no evidence to support penalty claim – Penalty declined - Sales representative |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application dismissed (Penalty) (Counterclaim - Penalty) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,472.54)(15 weeks, includes loss of company vehicle and deduction of domestic purposes benefit) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s128(2) |
| Cases Cited | Monteith v Hakansson, unreported, Shaw J, 3 Mar 2008, WC5/08 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 125_09.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |