Keeping copies of employment agreements…

For some time it has been a legal requirement for all employment agreements to be in writing. A failure to have an agreement in writing can result in penalties and damages plus personal grievances and disputes over the terms of employment which can cost the employer thousands of dollars.

It is now also a legal requirement that the employer keep on file a copy of the signed agreement, giving one to the employee is not sufficient.

It is also a legal requirement for copies to be kept on file of all drafts given to the employee to consider.  When you send out a draft agreement put a copy into the employee’s file.  When they sign the agreement and the employer has also signed give a copy to the employee and put a signed copy on their file.  A failure to do so could be costly.  If you need assistance with your employment agreements give me a call on (04) 473 6850.

Alan Knowsley

Reinstatement after dismissal for ignoring instruction not to leave work…

An employee dismissed after he ignored written and verbal instructions not to leave the workplace has taken a personal grievance for wrongful dismissal and won reinstatement, 11 weeks lost wages, $4,500 compensation and $3,500 legal costs.

The employee was the Union delegate for the work force and was told that if he was attending mediations with employees he needed to apply for unpaid leave seven days in advance.  He and the Union did not agree with that interpretation of the employment agreement. 

He attended a mediation and did not give the seven days notice, and was dismissed for a failure to follow instructions.

It was held that the dismissal was unjustified as the employer attended the mediation along with the Union delegate, and knew he was there supporting another employee in that role.  The requirement to give seven days notice was not reasonable.

If you need assistance dealing with any employment issues and getting the process right give me a call on 04 473 6850.

Alan Knowsley

Poor employee performance needs to be dealt with...

Sometimes an employee’s performance is not up to scratch.  Your role as an employer is to help them improve and to meet your expectations.  Such an approach is mutually beneficial and required by our law. The aim is to get the employee functioning at the required level in your business.

Recently the Employment Relations Authority reminded employers of how they are expected to manage such a process.  This includes:

·                Telling the employee of specific concerns about inadequate performance;

·                Setting measurable goals and expectations to remedy these inadequacies;

·                Putting in place any necessary training or support; and

·                Allowing time to review, and reviewing, progress.

In the case at point the employer had told the employee that “he had concerns for some time”.  This, however, was an issue for the Authority who pointed out that the employee had only been employed for 21 days. 

It may be that there is good cause for concern.  However, sweeping statements and generalisations will not assist you if any personal grievance arises.  Notification of allegations or concerns should be carefully detailed in writing.  We often assist employers in getting these letters right. It also helps to focus on what the real concerns with the employee’s performance are.

Once an employee is fully informed of the issues to be addressed, then you can meet with them to discuss what they are doing well and what needs improvement. Get their input and feedback and then put a plan in place to monitor their performance to achieve realistic and measureable standards.

For further information, consult our Performance Guide on www.raineycollins.co.nz in the Download section or for an initial discussion contact me on (04) 473 6850.

Alan Knowsley

Employee dismissal for obscene words & gestures overturned…

The Employment Court has granted an appeal by an employee against his dismissal.  The Employment Relations Authority had upheld the dismissal but this has now been overturned by the Court.

The employee was asked to work on a public holiday but when he arrived at work he was told he was not needed.  He denied receiving a text telling him not to come in.  He claimed for pay for the time at work and a day in lieu, but this was rejected by his manager who did not discuss it, or tell him of the decision.

When the employee discovered he had not been paid an argument developed and the employee swore at his manager, and made rude gestures, before walking off.

He was dismissed for misconduct by the same manager he swore at.  The Court said that in a large organisation a separate manager should have conducted the disciplinary investigation, and that the dismissal was not justified.  It would amount to misconduct, but not serious misconduct, given the employee’s previous good record and the lack of communication from his manager.

The main lesson to be remembered from this case is that the complainant on the receiving end of the rude behavior should also not be the investigator and decision maker.  The complainant cannot act impartially and without bias.  Get a different manager to do the interviews and make the disciplinary decisions.

The employee’s personal grievance was upheld, and he was awarded three months wages and can apply for reinstatement.

If you need help with a disciplinary process give me a call on 04 473 6850.

Alan Knowsley