Court: Employer and employee at fault

THE Industrial Court found in a recent judgment that both a company and the employee it dismissed must share responsibility for the events leading to termination of the worker’s services. According to the court, the company’s share of the responsibility stemmed from its managing director’s decision to hire a qualified engineeer who lacked direct experience in the job she was employed to do and the worker’s, for overestimating her own capabilities.

However, the worker, Cheryl Nicholas who was fired by her employer, Handy Equipment Ltd, after giving the company three years’ service, is to be paid the sum of $70,000 as damages by order of the court. The Court considered this amount as fair and appropriate compensation because Nicholas was fired in circumstances that were not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations practice. Handy Equipment has up to July 26 to pay the money. Sometime during the course of her employment with Handy Equipment, differences arose between Nicholas and her boss over her performance and she was dismissed. However, it was the reason for dismissal that created the real problem.

“Instead of termination by giving one month’s notice as the written contract required, the company chose to tell the worker that her post was redundant because the post had undergone a name change. “No credible explanation has been offered as to why, if her work performance were as bad as represented to us, she was not told this as the reason for termination of her employment,” the court noted. The court stressed, “It is essential that a company ensure that it makes a proper investigation of all the relevant circumstances, have a valid reason for terminating a worker’s service, inform the worker of the exact reason for dismissal and give the worker an opportunity to answer the allegations made against him/her.”