| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 38 |
| Hearing date | 4 Aug 2010 - 5 Aug 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 27 January 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | D Jacobson ; M Beech, S Grice |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Tod v Satara Co-Operative Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by warning – Applicant informed of production expectation for plant – Respondent claimed frequently discussed productivity and quality issues with applicant – Respondent concerned about inappropriate work practices by some staff at applicant’s site – Applicant claimed packing targets too high which resulted in higher level of physical damage to fruit – Respondent claimed plant not functioning properly due to applicant’s management – Performance measures discussed at meetings – Applicant claimed performance targets unfair – Applicant offered position at another plant – Applicant claimed wanted to stay at current site – Meeting held to discuss applicant’s performance – Applicant refused to comment on performance – Applicant issued with written warning – Further meeting adjourned as applicant requested be given opportunity to respond in writing to respondent’s concerns – Applicant subsequently dismissed – Authority found applicant understood performance requirements – Found applicant had second thoughts about what was achievable – Found respondent gave applicant opportunity to present version of reasonable targets – Found impossible for applicant to achieve targets in three weeks given – Found time frame for applicant to meet respondent’s overall expectations unreasonable – Found performance management about applicant being able to show making constructive effort to improve overall operations of site – Found applicant did not engage in constructive effort to improve operations – Found applicant fairly and reasonably made aware of concerns about management performance – Found respondent failed to follow due process in issuing warning – Found respondent failed to advise applicant of specific allegation and of likely consequences – Found applicant entitled to have support person at meeting – Found warning unjustified – Disadvantage unjustified – Found performance management of applicant undertaken with indecent haste – Found reasonable employer should have given applicant more time to realistically consider options including redeployment – Found reasonable employer would have taken into account applicant worked long hours and under considerable stress – Found poor work performance constituted less than serious misconduct – Found respondent’s actions unfair and unreasonable – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 40 percent contributory conduct – Found applicant failed to actively engage in performance management process – $2,728 reimbursement of lost wages appropriate – Found no evidence of any affect on applicant regarding unjustified disadvantage – Found applicant substantially affected by sudden loss of employment - $7,200 compensation appropriate – Day Shift Line Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (40%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,000 reduced to $7,200) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($4,547.14 reduced to $2,728.28) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Davis Trading Company Limited v Lewis [1993] 2 ERNZ 272;Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [2010] NZEMPC 4;Pacific Forum Line Ltd v Merchant Service Guild [1991] 3 ERNZ 1035;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 31 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_38.pdf [pdf 100 KB] |