Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Sullivan v Maxwell Marine Ltd
24 Jul 2006, R Arthur, AA 249/06, (8 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Five step disciplinary process in employment agreement - Although respondent did not establish counselling provided as first step, any procedural error cured by subsequent meetings - Over seven months applicant received five written warnings and attended several disciplinary meetings - No procedural error or unfairness in labelling three warnings "final" - Genuine reasons for performance concerns - However, applicant given insufficient time and detail to prepare responses to examples given in disciplinary meetings - Respondent moved too far, too fast, particularly with last three warnings - So close together no real opportunity for improvement or proper preparation - Not clear applicant aware at start of last meeting termination could result - No opportunity to comment on decision to dismiss - Dismissal unjustified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant's allegations demoted and discriminated against dismissed - Authority did not accept dismissal engineered to avoid paying redundancy entitlement - No disadvantage - Remedies - Authority not satisfied from applicant's evidence and general buoyancy of labour market that lost wages sufficiently mitigated - Contributory conduct 50 percent - Length of service not specified - Team leader
Result: Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (8 weeks reduced to 4 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,000 reduced to $1,000) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
