Dismissal of worker upheld

Press, 13 July 1984, Page 9

Dismissal of worker upheld

The Arbitration Court has upheld the right of an employer to dismiss a worker on the grounds of incompatibility. The case involved a Hamilton shop assistant who worked in a bag shop with another woman and a female manageress.

After differences arose between the two workers and the manageress, one of the workers was transferred, but the person who was not transferred in spite of a request for such a transfer, was dismissed. The Court has ruled that the dismissal was justified. The case, between the Auckland and Gisborne Amalgamated Society of Shop Employees’ Union and Modern Bags, Ltd, is the third such case in recent years where the Court has upheld dismissals on the grounds of incompatibility. The manageress told the Court when it sat in Hamilton on June 26 that her fellow workers had become progressively uncommunicative, unco-operative and, in some instances, inefficient. She put it down to resentment of her appointment over them as manageress.

The two workers gave evidence that the manageress had been irrational, at times incoherent, inconsist-

ent and unable to cope with the responsibilities of her job.

The Court, comprising Judge D. S. Castle and Messrs E. W. J. Ball and P. L. Oldham, dismissed the application by the union for compensation and lost wages for unjustified dismissal. The Court, in a majority decision, said that it was satisfied that the company had not acted unreasonably in dismissing the worker not transferred.

The precedents it cited were the Canterbury Clerical Workers’ Union against Burroughs, Ltd (1980), the Auckland Local Authority Officers’ Union against the Waitemata City Council (1980), and the Wellington Drivers’ Union against Fletcher Construction Company, Ltd (1983). In a dissenting opinion Mr Ball said that he was not convinced that the dismissal was the fairest resolution to the situation, but as far as the manageress was concerned it was the most expedient. “In my opinion expendiency does not make a dismissal justifiably correct,” he said.

The worker who had been dismissed had previously asked to be transferred and he asked why she had not been transferred.