Court told employee was unsatisfactory

Press, 29 June 1983, Page 4

Court told employee was unsatisfactory

An office worker whom the Canterbury Clerical Workers’ Union said had been cruelly and unjustly dismissed had been an unsatisfactory employee who made numerous mistakes, the Arbitration Court was told by the worker’s former employer yesterday. The Court heard a claim by the union that Miss Carol Tiplady had been unjustly dismissed from a position as a junior office worker with D. N. Russell and Company, Ltd, in July last year. The union sought $1930 in lost wages for Miss Tiplady and an additional sum to compensate her for the dismissal. Judge Horn and Messrs P. L. Oldham and D. Jacabs reserved decision. Mr M. D. J. Dawson, a field officer with the union, said the dismissal had been “cruel and unjustified.” The company had wanted to save money by dispensing with the position held by Miss Tiplady, Mr Dawson said. He described the reasons for the dismissal

given by the managing director of the company, Mr G. N. Russell, as trivial. Miss Tiplady told the Court that she had been employed by the company for two years as a typist, receptionist, and clerk. She said that although Mr Russell had complained to her of the quality of her work, she had not realised her job was at risk until she was advised to look for another job in July. Two weeks later she was given one week’s notice of dismissal, she said. Miss Tiplady said that Mr Russell had offered her a job in the company’s factory, and she thought he had also offered her a position in a shop. Evidence was also given by another former employee of the company that Miss Tiplady had been a good worker. She said she was shocked when Miss Tiplady was dismissed. Mr Russell told the Court that Miss Tiplady had made errors in typing, photocopying, and ledger work during her employment. He had warned her several times

that her work was not “up to scratch,” but these warnings were never heeded for very long, he said. “There were numerous times when I was dissatisfied with her workmanship.” Mr Russell said that he felt he had given Miss Tiplady plenty of reasons for her dismissal and had endeavoured to find another position for her within the company. She had declined two offers of alternative positions. He said that although Miss Tiplady’s work had been done by another employee after her dismissal, another person had since been employed to fill her position. Mrs F. Mongan, the manager of the office in which Miss Tiplady had worked, said Miss Tiplady had made errors in simple work and could not always be depended on. She said that although Miss Tiplady was pleasant, she did not have a good attitude to her work. Mrs Mongan had not been surprised when Mr Russell decided to dismiss Miss Tiplady.