Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 44/10
Hearing date 1 Apr 2009 - 2 Apr 2009 (2 days)
Determination date 03 February 2010
Member M Urlich
Representation D Cowan ; J Douglas
Location Auckland
Parties Riosa v NRG Electrical Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant claimed unjustified dismissal – Respondent argued business grew quickly and applicant unable to keep up with growing demands of role – Meeting held to discuss performance issues – Applicant’s performance monitored and meetings held to discuss performance – Applicant’s duties divided – Authority found applicant on notice of performance concerns – Applicant issued with written warning – Meeting held and applicant dismissed – Found fair and reasonable to decide applicant’s employment would not continue – Applicant argued not given enough time to improve performance – Found applicant afforded fair opportunity to address performance concerns – Applicant claimed respondent predetermined dismissal – Found dismissal not predetermined – Found applicant’s explanations were fairly considered, allegations fairly put and responses provided – Dismissal justified – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Applicant asserted bonus scheme term of employment – Respondent argued no bonus scheme in operation and any bonus paid at discretion of senior managers – Found bonus scheme not term of employment – Counterclaim – RECOVERY OF MONIES – Respondent sought recovery of overpayment of $11,818 in bonuses – Found no explanations as to how payments came about – Found bonuses exercise of discretion and insufficient evidence to support claim – National operations manager
Result Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited Ramankutty v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland unreported, Goddard CJ, 25 October 2001, AC 53B/01;Trotter v Telecom Corp of NZ [1993] 2 ERNZ 659
Number of Pages 14
PDF File Link: aa 44_10.pdf [pdf 53 KB]