| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 318 |
| Hearing date | 26 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 19 July 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | D Feist ; T Kelly |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Brand v Interno Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent – Respondent Managing Director (“K”) claimed business suffered temporary downturn – K asked applicant whether willing to take time off without pay or on annual leave – K claimed applicant enthusiastic about prospect of reducing hours as wanted to spend more time with children – K claimed surprised to see reduced hours now issue for applicant – Applicant claimed did not agree to take time off without pay and did not discuss children – Applicant claimed reduction in hours caused by hiring specialist machine operator (“B”) – K claimed applicant’s reduction in hours not influenced by B and given cost of machine necessary to hire specialist – Applicant claimed raised issues about reduction in hours on two occasions – K denied applicant raised issue and claimed if applicant had then would have looked for alternative – K claimed on quiet days applicant given option of doing general maintenance work or going home early and applicant opted for latter – Applicant produced payslips and bank statements and claimed significant drop in hours worked – Authority found reduction not as extreme as applicant claimed – Found evidence of K more credible overall – Found employment agreement allowed for reduction in employee’s hours due to downturn in business – Found more probable than not applicant raised no real objection to working reduced hours while employed – Found applicant agreed to work reduced hours when downturn in business – Found while reduction in hours disadvantageous to applicant not unjustifiably brought about by respondent – No disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor Performance – K asked applicant to attend meeting to discuss amount of time taken to install kitchen – Applicant received written warning – K asked applicant to attend meeting to discuss amount of time taken on six projects and quality of jobs in general – Applicant received further written warning – Applicant offered further training after warnings – K asked applicant to attend meeting to discuss issues about two projects and written warning from client – K informed applicant of serious nature of meeting and potential for dismissal – Applicant claimed performance issues not as bad as K portrayed – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed warnings lacked sufficient substance to be genuine – Found applicant never took issue with warnings while employed and expressly accepted first warning – Found both warnings issued for good cause – Found applicant offered further training but never took it – Applicant claimed dismissal procedure predetermined – Applicant claimed employment of B turning point in future of employment – Found claim not supported by evidence – Found employment of B irrelevant as to whether applicant continued to be employed – Found position advertised shortly after dismissal – Found K capable of assessing whether applicant made reasonable attempt to improve performance – Found relevant that small businesses like respondent can stand or fall on reputation to complete projects efficiently – Dismissed justified – Cabinet Maker |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_318.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |