Mr K was employed as Harris Transport’s Operations Manager. Harris Transports business was relocation work. Mr K had to schedule jobs amongst the various vehicles and organise staff to run the operation. He was paid $750.00 per week for a 50 hour week.
Mr K was worried about alcohol and drug problems amongst staff. He thought the main boss Mr B was not taking a hard enough line against offenders especially after he was physically assaulted twice by employees.
Mr B on the other hand, thought Mr K took too long to do things. What Mr B didn’t know was that Mr K was a diabetic. He often didn’t take his medication or eat the right food so, by the end of the day, often forgot things and got muddled.
Mr B was abused by a customer for being several hours late to a job – it was Mr K’s fault. He wrote to Mr K and gave him a written warning.
Things didn’t improve and Mr K received a second written warning.
A third problem arose. It was possible, however, that a driver was equally to blame as Mr K. Two weeks later Mr B gave Mr K a third written warning for that problem.
The same day as giving him the third written warning there was another problem. Mr B was very angry and tore strips off Mr K. Mr K had the next day off because of illness. Mr B, when he found out that Mr K was off ill, emailed him and told him that “due to employments issues, your employment will cease”.
Mr K was unemployed for two months.
It should be patently obvious by now to regular readers that the employer was in the wrong. A couple of weeks ago I raised the evils of emails and texts in employment relationships. This is another example of why people should not use email to communicate with each other about employment issues.
Mr K was awarded $8,000.00 compensation and $6,500.00 loss remuneration because of the following:
The whole process was fundamentally flawed. The warnings given did not give any information about what improvements would meet the employer’s requirements, how any improvement would be measured or the fixing of any time period for a trial.
Mr K was not involved at all in any reasoned assessment of the final issue that led to his dismissal. He was given no opportunity to answer the employer’s concerns.
Employers - never, ever dismiss someone without taking legal advice.
