Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
Deaf laundry assistant wins compo over sacking | Otago Daily Times Online
A deaf laundry assistant who falsified her timesheet twice should have been given a warning rather than being fired, the Employment Relations Authority has ruled.
It found that Nicola O'Neil was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded her $4000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, and $2500 in lost wages.
Ms O'Neil could have been entitled to $5000 compensation, but a deduction of 20 percent was made by authority member Helen Doyle because she considered Ms O'Neil was partially to blame by leaving work early.
Her Christchurch employer, Ilam Lifecare, should have issued a warning over performance and relationship issues which needed addressing, but "a fair and reasonable employer" would not have sacked her, Ms Doyle said.
On two occasions Ms O'Neil left work earlier than the time stated on her timesheet.
Ms Doyle said it was clear that she had not tried to hide the fact she was leaving early, and had, in fact, said goodbye to the supervisor who complained about her performance.
She also found there was a need to discuss difficulties between Ms O'Neil and her supervisor and to establish if Ms O'Neil's deafness contributed to a communication breakdown between the pair.
Ms Doyle found there was no serious misconduct in terms of Ms O'Neil failing to take directions from her boss.
A deaf laundry assistant who falsified her timesheet twice should have been given a warning rather than being fired, the Employment Relations Authority has ruled.
It found that Nicola O'Neil was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded her $4000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, and $2500 in lost wages.
Ms O'Neil could have been entitled to $5000 compensation, but a deduction of 20 percent was made by authority member Helen Doyle because she considered Ms O'Neil was partially to blame by leaving work early.
Her Christchurch employer, Ilam Lifecare, should have issued a warning over performance and relationship issues which needed addressing, but "a fair and reasonable employer" would not have sacked her, Ms Doyle said.
On two occasions Ms O'Neil left work earlier than the time stated on her timesheet.
Ms Doyle said it was clear that she had not tried to hide the fact she was leaving early, and had, in fact, said goodbye to the supervisor who complained about her performance.
She also found there was a need to discuss difficulties between Ms O'Neil and her supervisor and to establish if Ms O'Neil's deafness contributed to a communication breakdown between the pair.
Ms Doyle found there was no serious misconduct in terms of Ms O'Neil failing to take directions from her boss.