Court rules marketing hire was given insufficient orientation and time to demonstrate her skill
The Employment Court has shot down a company’s appeal over its unjustified dismissal of a worker just three days after her commencement. The company contended that the Employment Relations Authority erred in its decision. However, on appeal, the Employment Court struck out the company’s claims, finding the employee was entitled to the remedy set by the authority.
The case concerned an employee hired as a marketing, sales and production coordinator with a manufacturer in Christchurch. On her first day of work, the employee was asked to assist with a presentation for a visiting Chinese delegation. Later that afternoon, the general manager advised the employee that the visit had been postponed, and the employee was assigned a new task to redesign the company’s website. When she asked for briefing materials to assist her, the manager told her to research other companies and “adapt that content”.
The next morning, the employee was advised that her work was “basic” and that she had until the end of the day to produce more acceptable content. That afternoon, she was told that the company was still unhappy with her work, and she was “not needed any further”. One hour later, the employee received a termination email advising she would be paid in place of the required three days’ notice.
At first, the Employment Relations Authority found that the company unjustifiably dismissed the employee. The company appealed the decision in the Employment Court.
The hearing
The first issue for the Employment Court was whether the company provided the employee with adequate notice of her dismissal.
The court opined that, when the Chinese delegation cancelled its visit, the employee’s services were no longer needed, and the company “set about ending her employment as quickly as possible” by raising unsubstantiated performance issues.
Although the employer contended that the termination email provided the required three days’ notice, the court found that the dismissal took place during the afternoon meeting, not the email.
The company also submitted that the employee’s performance was “so inadequate that summary dismissal was a step that a fair and reasonable employer could have taken”. The court disagreed, siding with the authority to find that the employee was given insufficient orientation and time to demonstrate her skill level before she was dismissed.
Finally, the employer also submitted that the court should reduce the employee’s remedy by 100% in light of her alleged performance issues. The court also rejected that submission, finding the employee was entitled to the $3,775 in lost wages and $12,000 in compensation awarded by the authority.
Key takeaways
- When determining whether an employee was unjustifiably dismissed, the court will consider what a “fair and reasonable” employer would have done in the circumstances
- Employers must ensure they provide adequate notice of an employee’s dismissal
- Where an employer fails to induct or train an employee adequately, they may face difficulty in showing that the employee’s performance shortfalls warranted their dismissal
