Why we need more substance over process in employment laws
Natalie Akoorie at NZ Herald reports:
Mr Gostmann was dismissed without notice from Independent Refrigeration and Electrical in Whakatane in August last year after making a series of costly and serious errors.
In one of the incidents an apprentice asked Mr Gostmann if cables had been isolated when they had not. The cables short-circuited when the apprentice went to move them and he narrowly avoided electrocution.
So almost killed someone.
When Mr Gostmann was interviewed for the senior position early last year, he told Mr Faber he was a refrigeration engineer with 15 years’ experience in South Africa. But when he could not perform basic duties alarm bells rang.
Incompetent.
When Mr Faber made inquiries with Mr Gostmann’s former employers in South Africa he was told Mr Gostmann was merely a handyman.
Lied.
His only qualification in the industry was the equivalent of a two-week course completed for immigration papers and that a reference from his former employer was actually signed by an unwitting office person.
Unqualified.
ERA member Rachel Larmer also accepted evidence that Mr Gostmann’s named referee was someone who worked at a supermarket, rather than at a coolroom and display refrigeration manufacturing company in South Africa, as stated on Mr Gostmann’s curriculum vitae.
However, she criticised Independent Refrigeration for not attempting to improve Mr Gostmann’s poor workmanship through a performance management or monitoring process.
He lied about his experience and was unqualified – and it is their responsibility to improve his performance?
She also said the company should have carried out more thorough reference checks but acknowledged Mr Gostmann was 50 per cent to blame for his dismissal because his work was not up to standard.
The reference was effectively false, and again this is the company’s fault!
She told Independent Refrigeration to pay $10,304 to Mr Gostmann for distress compensation.
Incredible.
Who would want to be an employer?