| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 255/09 |
| Hearing date | 17 Feb 2009 - 5 Mar 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 30 July 2009 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | M Paewai ; B Edwards |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Mercer v Maori Television Service |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Misconduct – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued entitled to dismiss applicant after failure to meet performance expectations in settlement agreement – Settlement agreement confirmed applicant’s final written warning and provided applicant to be assessed against 6 weekly performance reviews for next 8 months – Agreement provided applicant required to report absences or lateness to managers and dismissal would result if obligations breached – First review meeting held and parties agreed on performance goals – Second meeting concluded applicant meeting expectations – Third meeting concluded performance “unsatisfactory” – Disciplinary meeting held – Respondent requested applicant explain four incidents of lateness and absence from work – Respondent concluded applicant’s explanations unsatisfactory - Applicant dismissed for failure to meet obligations and poor performance – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified as review period had not ended – Authority found agreement provided applicant’s performance had to be satisfactory for entire review period therefore unsatisfactory performance sufficient grounds for dismissal – Applicant claimed dismissal predetermined – Found no predetermination – Applicant claimed dismissal procedurally unjustified – Found no evidence to support claim – Applicant claimed not notified performance review meeting was disciplinary meeting – Found applicant notified of disciplinary meeting following performance review meeting – Applicant claimed unjustified suspension – Found applicant not suspended but required to attend disciplinary meeting instead of work – Applicant claimed respondent failed to check camera footage to confirm arrival time for one incident – Found no security footage existed to confirm applicant’s alleged arrival time – Applicant claimed alternatives to dismissal not considered – Found alternatives considered – Applicant claimed requirement to leave workplace immediately after dismissal “heavy-handed” – Found respondent’s request reasonable – Applicant claimed lateness incidents not sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal – Found respondent entitled to hold applicant to specified performance standards – Found rejection of applicant’s explanations reasonable given applicant’s performance history – Dismissal justified – Camera Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 255_09.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |