| Summary |
INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed allegations of poor performance and punctuality not adequately raised during probationary reviews therefore dismissal unjustified – Respondent claimed good management of probationary period – Applicant subject to 3 month probationary period with monthly reviews to monitor performance – First review raised poor performance and punctuality – Second review acknowledged punctuality improved however performance poor – Additional review held due to applicant’s regular absences from work – Applicant’s employment terminated at final review meeting – Respondent repeatedly advised applicant needed to improve performance to continue employment relations - Applicant claimed arguable case on four heads – First, whether applicant’s performance adequately monitored – Second, whether applicant would have met timeframes if timeframes given – Third, whether applicant’s absences and punctuality adequately raised at reviews – Fourth, whether issues with applicant’s ill health raised at reviews - Respondent claimed good management polices followed – Claimed applicant claimed timeframes unnecessary due to sufficient experience in industry – Claimed all matters adequately raised – Authority found arguable case – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour due to financial loss and hardship suffered if no opportunity to prove skills and abilities given – Respondent claimed applicant not contributing to profitability of business, needed costly supervision and short wait for substantive hearing – Found damages sufficient to compensate applicant’s interim losses therefore balance favoured respondent – Found overall justice favoured respondent – Found negative impact of reinstatement outweighed benefit to applicant – Found reinstatement of applicant impractical when redundancy possible – Interim reinstatement declined – Tradesperson |