| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed respondent did not act fairly towards applicant during probationary period therefore dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued followed proper procedures and entitled to rely on probationary clause in employment agreement (“EA”) – Applicant represented themselves as experienced and qualified welder and demanded higher wage rate before employment commenced – Respondent agreed to higher wage rate and employed applicant without checking references – EA contained 3 month probationary period clause - Applicant declined to sign EA claiming not proper representation of employment relationship – Applicant altered provisions in EA but no agreement sought from respondent for changes – Conflict of evidence whether respondent sought applicant’s signature and return of EA – Respondent raised poor performance concerns to applicant during first month of probationary period - First review meeting discussed applicant’s failure to meet timeframes, low productivity and punctuality issues – Follow-up letter concluded applicant’s performance satisfactory, with exception of timeframe and punctuality matters – Second meeting concluded applicant not meeting timeframes and improvement needed – Third meeting concluded applicant’s performance unsatisfactory, needed substantial improvement, and future with respondent in doubt – Final meeting concluded dismissal on grounds applicant failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance during probationary period – Respondent’s evidence preferred – Authority found although applicant did not sign EA, EA represented terms of employment relationship – Found applicant knew or ought to have known performance assessed by respondent and permanent employment assured only if performance met respondent’s standards – Found respondent failed to identify full extent of applicant’s inadequacies – Found however, review meetings and respondent’s informal advice sufficient to covey to applicant what inadequacies were – Found third meeting constituted fair warning employment may be ending – Found timeliness in completing tasks fundamental consideration as it goes to business profitability – Found respondent contributed to situation by failing to check references, however, entitled to rely on applicant’s representations – Dismissal justified – Authority commented even if applicant’s evidence preferred, decision would not change - Welder |