Not only did they not adhere to a code of ethics.At no point did they consider any of the following
The test for any justified dismissal is the same
“ what was it open to a fair and reasonable employer to do "
A dismissal for poor performance is fundamentally no different from one for misconduct .
A dismissal for poor performance is fundamentally no different from one for misconduct .
In both cases, the question is,
"Whether the employees behavior was a breach of the contract, and was it so serious, that the employer was entitled to accept the repudiation of that contract?"
The trial of the employees work , must be fair, and the results at the end of the trial period considered dispassionately.
The trial of the employees work , must be fair, and the results at the end of the trial period considered dispassionately.
The employer should take into account an employee’s previous good record and possibility of redeployment
Without a fair trial of the employees capacity, the employer has no reasonable basis for reaching a conclusion adverse to the employee and must be treated as if had not in fact been reached .
These are some of the questions that should have been considered and where not
Q. Did the employer in fact become dissatisfied with the employer performance
Yes this was the case it was addressed and corrected
Q Did the employer inform the employee of the dissatisfaction and set out the expect standard
Yes and these were met ,commented on, and accepted by his team leader
Q. Were the criticisms and future requirements, objective and readily comprehensible by the employee.
Yes these where met and accepted by the team leader but the micro managing that followed was not objective
Q Was reasonable time allowed for the attainment of the required standards
Yes for the initial non performance, but not for the micro managing.
After all had been done, did the employer turn their mind fairly, to the question whether the employee had achieved what was expected?
Without a fair trial of the employees capacity, the employer has no reasonable basis for reaching a conclusion adverse to the employee and must be treated as if had not in fact been reached .
These are some of the questions that should have been considered and where not
Q. Did the employer in fact become dissatisfied with the employer performance
Yes this was the case it was addressed and corrected
Q Did the employer inform the employee of the dissatisfaction and set out the expect standard
Yes and these were met ,commented on, and accepted by his team leader
Q. Were the criticisms and future requirements, objective and readily comprehensible by the employee.
Yes these where met and accepted by the team leader but the micro managing that followed was not objective
Q Was reasonable time allowed for the attainment of the required standards
Yes for the initial non performance, but not for the micro managing.
After all had been done, did the employer turn their mind fairly, to the question whether the employee had achieved what was expected?
Including
Using an objective assessment of measurable targets.
The measurement was not objective micro –management targets are impossible to reach.
Whom else on site achieved the required result..refer earlier blog.
Giving the employee an opportunity to answer the conclusion arising form the trial period
The employee expressed on more than one occasion, that the micro-management was an unfair practice, that it was work place bullying disguised as performance management.
Listening to the employees explanation with an open mind
No, they listened but did nothing.
Giving the employee an opportunity to answer the conclusion arising form the trial period
The employee expressed on more than one occasion, that the micro-management was an unfair practice, that it was work place bullying disguised as performance management.
Listening to the employees explanation with an open mind
No, they listened but did nothing.
It was never their intention to do anything.
Considering the explanation, and all the favorable aspects of the employees service record and any fault on the part of the employers in terms of poor management or training.
No, the manager had just received the lowest marking in respect to performance of the team from the team and nothing was done.
Considering the explanation, and all the favorable aspects of the employees service record and any fault on the part of the employers in terms of poor management or training.
No, the manager had just received the lowest marking in respect to performance of the team from the team and nothing was done.
Management would not acknowledge or correct poor marketing product process..XT and APPCO
Exhausting all possible remedial steps such has training counseling and redeployment
Training and counseling was offered, redeployment was never offered as dismissal was the objective of the micro management.
Exhausting all possible remedial steps such has training counseling and redeployment
Training and counseling was offered, redeployment was never offered as dismissal was the objective of the micro management.
Can one be trained in addressing micromanagement issues and the impact of same?
Can one be counselled on micro management?
Should this counselling be prior, during or after?
consider this.
You are going to be micromanaged......"You will need counselling", We can offer the EAP (Employee Assistance program) "as a caring employer"
As HR should have been across all case law with regard to employment at no point did they consider the points referred to in
Now Consider please
Whelan v Waitaki Meats Ltd
Vorvis v Insurance Corp
Trask v Terra Nova Motors
Telecom South v Post Office Union
Stanley v Gupsum mines
Stams v The Pad and Paper co
Spring v Guardian Assurance
Sharpe v Wakefield
Polkey v Dayton services
Paykel ltd v Ahlfeld
Pickett v British rail engineering
Pacific Forum Line ltd v Merchant Service Guild
NZ PSA v Land Corp
NZ Printing v Holmes Super Sacks
NZ Food Processing v Unilever NZ Ltd
Mawson v Auckland Area Health Board
Macadam v Port Nelson Ltd
Air New Zealand v Johnston
Airline Stewards and Hostess v Air New Zealand
And many others .......BUT MY POINT HAS BEEN MADE.
So they failed in the their duty of care towards me as an employee, minor point you may feel but not, when presented in court.
Current telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young call center manager Hamilton call center, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents
Shaun Hoult team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton
Iain Galloway HR representative spends a lot of time in Hamilton
No comments:
Post a Comment