Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 239/09
Hearing date 2 Jun 2009 - 3 Jun 2009 (2 days)
Determination date 16 July 2009
Member A Dumbleton
Representation S Mitchell ; A Scott-Howman
Location Auckland
Parties Kimber v New Zealand Fire Service
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed employment agreement (“EA”) did not entitle respondent to dismiss applicant for failure to obtain prescribed qualification, therefore dismissal substantively unjustified – Respondent argued entitled to expect applicant proficient in certain skills and applicant’s failure to obtain prescribed qualification indicated applicant not proficient in those skills – Applicant repeatedly failed to obtain prescribed qualification which assessed applicant’s ability to wear and operate breathing apparatus in emergencies – Respondent advised applicant unable to perform duties if qualification not obtained – Applicant dismissed for poor performance – Authority found respondent used the attainment of prescribed qualification as objective performance assessment administered to applicant – Found respondent dismissed applicant for lacking particular attributes which respondent reasonably required of its trainers, namely proficiency in skills relating to the qualification – Found inappropriate for Authority to question why respondent adopted the qualification as part of their performance assessment process – Found applicant given reasonable opportunity to obtain qualification and demonstrate proficiency in required skills – Dismissal justified – Reinstatement declined – Training Officer
Result Application dismissed ; Reinstatement declined ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A;ERA s127
Cases Cited Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand [2005] ERNZ 587;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand [1993] 2 ERNZ 659
Number of Pages 5
PDF File Link: aa 239_09.pdf [pdf 22 KB]