Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Ali v AAA Parts & Auto Services Ltd
4 Apr 2007, R Arthur, AA 103/07, (6 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Respondent claimed applicant given three warnings before dismissed - Warning process unfair - First warning did not discuss specific problems or targets - Second warning described as three month review and stated applicant being given last chance - Told would be reviewed again in three months - Third warning claimed behaviour had not changed - No meetings before warnings issued and nothing put to applicant - Warnings in nature of "dressing down" but not told specifics or how to improve - No opportunity to respond - Warnings unjustified - On day of dismissal, respondent waited for applicant at opening time then told him no longer employed - Failed to follow minimal procedural requirements - Although background of general tension, evidence did not establish respondent's allegations - Unable to say dismissal substantively justified - Dismissal unjustified - Work permit required applicant work for specific employer - Respondent contacted Immigration Service when applicant "threatened to take [it] to court" over dismissal and arrears - Respondent entitled to contact Immigration Service but improper motive - Intended to hinder applicant exercising statutory rights - Mechanic
Result: Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (15 weeks) ; Arrears of wages (3 days) ; Arrears of holiday pay (3 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; No order for costs
Maher v Counties Manukau District Health Board
22 Jan 2007, M Urlich, AA 15/07, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Poor performance - Restrictions placed on applicant's medical practice by Medical Council of New Zealand ("MCNZ"), including requirement for supervision - Respondent claimed restrictions meant applicant could not perform all required duties - Supervisors' concerned about applicant's skills - Allegations raised relating to prescription of medication - Investigation on all issues convened pursuant to employment agreement - Supervisors' reports provided to MCNZ and considered by respondent when deciding penalty - Applicant able to comment on reports before respondent reached conclusion - Appropriate to take supervisors' concerns into consideration - Reasonable to conclude concerns well founded and formed part of relevant circumstances at time of inquiry and dismissal - High level of trust resided in employee in applicant's position - In circumstances, failure to give acceptable explanation to prescription allegation would erode trust to serious degree - Dismissal justified - Medical officer special scale
Result: Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
