Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Binnie v Meteorological Service of New Zealand Ltd
28 May 2007, P R Stapp, WA 85/07, (15 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Employment ended when applicant failed to meet precondition of employment - Required to complete university Graduate Diploma in Meteorology as part of respondent's formal training programme - Respondent advised by university applicant would receive "fail" grade for research project, although on aggregate would receive diploma - Previously warned if failed would be dismissed - Parties met to discuss options for continued employment - Dismissal on notice confirmed and applicant given option of resigning - Further negotiations did not resolve issue and applicant removed from payroll - Final grade for research project not received until after investigation meeting - Requirement applicant pass research project clear - Letter from supervisor not confirmation of result but open to respondent to rely on it - Respondent not provided with university's letter before meeting but not disadvantaged as had advance notice of contents - Applicant's allegation dismissal predetermined rejected - However, fair and reasonable employer would have provided applicant reasonable time to formally confirm results and consider whether to appeal grade - Other options existed for further training or deployment - Dismissal unjustified - Employment agreement not proper fixed term agreement as no provision on how it would end - Applicant entitled to lost wages as some presumption of continuing employment in role with wages at appropriate rate - Respondent had increased salary at completion of Diploma to avoid prejudice, but training salary to be used to calculate remedies - Trainee meteorologist
Result: Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($3,905.66) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($9,000) ; Costs reserved
back to top
Pegram v Heritage Productions Ltd
12 Apr 2007, P Cheyne, CA 43/07, (5 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Applicant subject to one month probationary period - Despite respondent's knowledge of performance difficulties, applicant's trial period ended without it marking occasion - Applicant became permanent employee - Later respondent purported to extend trial period - At end of extended trial, applicant told no further employment being offered - No written employment agreement - Respondent claimed thought agreement did not need to be provided until applicant confirmed as permanent at conclusion of trial - Letter extending trial a unilateral attempt to vary contractual position and ineffective - Performance concerns not raised with applicant before dismissal - Respondent fell short of requirements of procedural fairness - Summary dismissal not appropriate in absence of serious misconduct - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Applicant developed antagonism towards co-worker and resisted her assistance or supervision - Took advantage of managers' absence with poor work habits - Applicant's mistakes more extensive than she acknowledged - Contributory conduct 50 percent - Short duration of employment and relevant speed with which new job found taken into consideration when awarding compensation
Result: Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,887 reduced to $1,443.75) ; Compensation for humiliation ($1,500) ; Costs reserved
back to top
Taylor v Review Publishing Co Ltd
30 Apr 2007, M Urlich, AA 131/07, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Applicant claimed when accepted role made it clear would need support - Neither party rigorously assessed applicant's skills or experience to fulfil role - Applicant subject to probationary period - Respondent concerned about performance - Suggested applicant move from editor to freelance writer - Submitted applicant relieved and said he had thought about leaving - Described meeting as amicable - Applicant claimed considered leaving if next publication did not improve - No evidence to support respondent's contention applicant agreed to resign to accept freelance work - Respondent initiated end of employment - Applicant's response understandable in situation - Applicant dismissed - Respondent failed to meet barest standards of fair and reasonable conduct - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Respondent failed to draw performance concerns to applicant's attention or comply with terms of probationary period - However, Authority accepted respondent had serious concerns about performance and applicant acknowledged to a degree floundered in role - Contributory conduct 25 percent applied to lost wages only - Editor
Result: Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (10 weeks reduced to 6) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved
back to top
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
