| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 408/10 |
| Hearing date | 16 Jun 2010 |
| Determination date | 10 September 2010 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | P Blair ; N Jones |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Bishop & Anor v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Other Parties | The Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant employed by respondent for more than 30 years – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged as result of written warning – Applicant claimed warning issued in breach of Collective Employment Agreement (“CEA”) – Respondent claimed warning issued in accordance with CEA and only issued after respondent established applicant’s failure to meet performance expectations over six month period – Authority found CEA gave respondent discretion to issue written warning and set out delivery expectations – Found applicant failed to meet performance standards and entered Performance Improvement Programme (“PIP”) as result – Found PIP fair and reasonable – Applicant invited to attend meeting and bring support person – Applicant issued with written warning – Found applicant aware of performance expectations – Found respondent took into account performance improvements before warning issued – Found issuing written warning action a fair and reasonable employer would have taken – Delivery Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Nimon & Sons Ltd v Buckley unreported, Couch J, 5 Oct 2007, WC 26/07;Toll New Zealand Consolidated Ltd v Rowe [2007] ERNZ 840;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 66 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 408_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |