| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 170 |
| Hearing date | 10 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2011 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | G Froggatt ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Slater v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd t/a NZ Bus |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – Applicant dismissed after 22 month history of performance issues – Respondent’s evidence of applicant’s performance included 10 collisions, lateness, failure to stop for passengers and acceptance of fares without issuing tickets – Applicant disputed details and interpretation of incidents but accepted incidents occurred – Applicant claimed one collision not properly investigated by respondent – Respondent clamed fully and fairly investigated incident and investigation review would not have prevented dismissal – Authority found competent driver would have avoided collision and respondent’s assessment involved union delegate – Found respondent could no longer be confident applicant competent driver – Found respondent acted in way a reasonable employer would have acted in all the circumstances – Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed disadvantaged by final warning for lateness followed by dismissal for minor accident – Respondent claimed entitled to dismiss as respondent did not have confidence in applicant’s ability to drive safely – Authority found applicant must have known employment in jeopardy and likely would have been dismissed regardless of final lateness warning – Found applicant involved in number of accidents and failed to accept performance not of minimum standard – No unjustified disadvantage - Bus Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_170.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |