| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 212/10 |
| Hearing date | 16 Feb 2010 - 17 Feb 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 07 May 2010 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | B Maddern (Applicant in person) ; A Steele, C Mansell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Maddern v Worldxchange Communications Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Respondent received disproportionate number of complaints about applicant’s service - Respondent’s concerns about applicant’s performance initially dealt with in informal way - When complaints continued respondent began formal performance management process - Despite undertaking lengthy performance management process respondent continued to receive complaints about applicant’s service - Respondent concluded applicant not appreciating how performance not satisfactory and could not understand how his approach was upsetting for customers - Respondent concluded applicant could not give confidence or reason to hope that further assistance and guidance would improve performance - Applicant dismissed - Authority accepted applicant given two verbal warning and two written warnings - Found applicant provided with specific reasons as to why respondent dissatisfied with work - Found applicant knew exactly what respondent concerned about - Found respondent counselled applicant in ways to improve performance - Found respondent provided informal and formal counselling, advice and feedback, sent applicant on Kiwihost course and specifically advised applicant not to pause for long periods while talking to customers, that yes" and "no" answers inappropriate, and detailed responses to questions required - Authority accepted respondent communicated to applicant specific, measurable and achievable actions for improvement - Found applicant given considerable time to improve performance as full disciplinary process proceeded over 21 months - Authority accepted applicant did not appreciate concerns about performance - Respondent’s evidence that could have no confidence or reason to hope further assistance and guidance would improve applicant’s performance accepted - Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant kept pile of 300 to 400 paper cranes on desk - Respondent’s Operation Manger (“M”) left note on applicant’s desk saying “there will be no more of this until you pay for the paper” - Applicant complained to respondent that note publicly humiliated him by accusing him of theft as a servant - Applicant also complained about two instances where other employees had interfered with paper crane construction - Respondent investigated incidents - M apologised for note - Staff reminded not to interfere with others property and one employee disciplined - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by way respondent handled complaints - Applicant claimed not involved in process, process took too long, and M did not make public apology - Authority found respondent’s actions in responding to applicant’s concerns sensitive and reasonable - Authority satisfied respondent took applicant’s concerns seriously and took appropriate action to address matters - Found no unjustifiable action by respondent in relation to management of applicant's complaints - No unjustified disadvantage - Technical Response Representative" |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 212_10.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |