| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 300/09 |
| Hearing date | 22 Apr 2009 - 23 Apr 2009 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 25 August 2009 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | J Woodhouse ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Russell v Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified as poor performance allegations false – Respondent argued applicant’s performance failed to improve after proper performance management procedures followed – Applicant consistently made errors in preparation of exam papers and failed to meet expected output levels during two year employment period – Respondent’s registrar (“M”) held informal meetings to discuss poor performance and set performance management plan – Applicant denied allegations – Applicant’s poor performance continued and M requested formal meeting – Applicant claimed M treated applicant unfairly to respondent’s representative (“C”) – Applicant claimed mistakes minor and caused by computer system – C investigated claim and concluded claim unsubstantiated – First written warning issued – Warning provided applicant’s typing skills satisfactory, however, inadequate skills to undertake complex tasks as required by employment agreement – Formal performance management plan set – Applicant’s work assessed by external consultant who concluded applicant lacked proficiency in complex duties and recommended repeat training – M believed training not viable as applicant denied allegations – Applicant continued making errors and C unsuccessfully attempted to arrange formal meetings – Applicant declined requests due to illness and refused to provide medical information - Respondent advised applicant continual refusal would result in respondent proceeding with review without applicant’s input and final written warning may result – Final warning issued – Applicant’s poor performance continued and refused requests to attend review meetings – Respondent warned applicant final decision would be made if applicant did not attend or provide written response – Applicant dismissed – Authority found respondent’s conclusion of poor performance reasonable given applicant’s inability to carry out key duties – Found respondent informed applicant performance unsatisfactory and the expected performance level – Found applicant consistently denied performance poor – Found respondent’s criticism objective and comprehensible by applicant – Found performance management process ran over 2 year period – Found respondent offered assistance and training, used objective assessment targets, gave opportunity for explanation, gave consideration to applicant’s concerns and exhausted alternative remedial steps – Found applicant’s claim of unfair treatment investigated seriously by respondent – Found respondent followed proper procedures regarding applicant’s health issues – Found applicant unreasonably declined requests to provide relevant information – Dismissal justified – Administration Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Corp of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 20 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 300_09.pdf [pdf 54 KB] |