| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 490/10 |
| Hearing date | 13 Sep 2010 - 15 Sep 2010 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 22 November 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | L Keys, M Londahl ; K Thompson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | O'Rourke v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by several issues related to performance standards – Respondent discussed Goals, Measurements and Targets (“GMT”) document with applicant – Employee assessment under GMT factor in considering payments under bonus scheme – Applicant emailed respondent saying confused by GMT and understood each GMT to be agreed between individual and manager – Respondent took applicant’s email as query about performance review process and expectations – Subsequently applicant incorrectly completed self-assessment section giving 100 percent rating for each category – However, range from zero to 133 – Respondent’s performance review of applicant involved several criticisms of applicants work – Respondent proposed performance improvement plan for applicant – Applicant sent letter outlining respondent’s expectations regarding performance improvement – Letter set date for formal review meeting to discuss applicant’s progress – Applicant informed if satisfactory explanation not provided disciplinary consequences could follow – Applicant provided written warning – Applicant to be removed from operational flying duties and to attend administrative duties for three weeks – Subsequently applicant certified as unfit for work due to work related stress by own GP – Respondent’s medical officer found applicant had stressors regarding employment relationship with manager but no diagnosed psychiatric disorder and medically fit to return to work, including flying duties – Applicant required to attend ground based coaching programme – Authority found while internal logic of GMT apparent to those well used to its operation did not conform to ordinary or intuitive standards in metric and decimal based society – Found applicant’s difficulty in self-assessment was identified and addressed by respondent – Found elements of GMT not intended or required to be negotiated by parties – Found GMTs themselves not contractual but direction to work towards them was – Found not satisfied respondent’s reviews of applicant lacked evidential foundation – Found applicant continued to fail to meet reasonable performance requirements that were not fault of equipment or other information difficulties – Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer – Found in course of correspondence applicant given adequate notice of prospect of disciplinary sanction – Found warning justified – Found applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to require applicant cease flying duties and attend coaching programme – Found credibility finding in favour of respondent – Found respondent’s concerns about applicant’s performance genuinely held and steps taken to address concerns were fair and reasonable – Found respondent had not asked anything exceptional of applicant – Found no unjustified disadvantage – Flight Service Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | McKean v Board of Trustees of Wakaaranga School [2007] ERNZ 1;Trotter v Telecom [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 490_10.pdf [pdf 47 KB] |