Alexander Mattocks v Canon Australia Pty Ltd

[1995] IRCA 606

C A T C H W O R D S

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of Employment - poor performance - procedural fairness

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988, ss.170EA, 170DC, 170DE

ALEXANDER MATTOCKS -V- CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

No. WI95/1107

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:                       L FARRELL

PLACE:  ADELAIDE (HEARD IN PERTH)

DATE:  17 OCTOBER 1995             
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT                 )
OF AUSTRALIA  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )

No WI 95/1107

B E T W E E N:

ALEXANDER MATTOCKS

Applicant

- and -

CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

BEFORE:JUDICIAL REGISTRAR  FARRELL

PLACE  :           ADELAIDE (HEARD IN PERTH)

DATE             :           17 OCTOBER 1995

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application is dismissed.

NOTE:   Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the   Industrial Relations Court Rules

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT                 )
OF AUSTRALIA  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )

No. WI95/1107

B E T W E E N:

ALEXANDER MATTOCKS

Applicant

- and -

CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

BEFORE         :          JUDICIAL REGISTRAR FARRELL

PLACE                      :ADELAIDE (HEARD IN PERTH)

DATE             :17 OCTOBER 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an Application pursuant to Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act.

The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as an Electo-mechanical Technician from 1990 until 24th January 1995.  Until mid October 1994 the Applicant’s work involved visiting customers of the Respondent to provide service and repairs to photocopiers.

The Applicant was warned about aspects of his performance in September 1993.  He received a mostly positive assessment from his supervisor in February 1994.  In April 1994 he was tested at his request for an improved grading.  He failed that test so badly that a recommendation was made that he be taken away from field duties.  On 31 August 1994 he was counselled about a number of matters, he was then transferred into the Respondent’s workshop.  On 20 October 1994 he was given a final warning, with his performance to be reviewed two months later. 

Shortly before his performance was to be reviewed he inured his hand and was absent from work from 6 December 1994 until 24 January 1995.  On that day he attended a meeting with Mr Bell, Manager, Mr Dullighan, his supervisor was at that meeting at his request.  The Union Official who had attended a previous meeting was not able to attend because he was on annual leave.  Mr Bell gave evidence that he gave the Applicant the opportunity to contact his Union prior to the commencement of that meeting however the Applicant chose to have Mr Dullighan attend the meeting with him.  I accept the evidence of Mr Bell in that regard.

During the meeting the Applicant was given the opportunity to explain what Mr Bell in his evidence described as his atrocious performance during his review period in the workshop.  Mr Bell advised the Applicant that his performance in the workshop had been compared to that of the Trainee, Mr Edgell.  He had instructed Mr Dullighan to count the number of job sheets which showed that the Applicant had performed 37 jobs and the trainee 89 jobs during a similar period of approximately 7 weeks.

The Applicant told Mr Bell that he believed the comparison was inaccurate and Mr Bell agreed to check the matters raised by the Applicant.

Mr Bell gave evidence that he asked Mr Dullighan who had prepared the figures to check them.  Mr Dullighan gave evidence that he did check the figures.  Later that day the Applicant’s employment was terminated.

The Applicant’s case was that the first warning in September 1993 was nullified by the subsequent assessment by his supervisor, that the grading test was unfair, that the comparison between the trainee and himself was inaccurate because the information relied upon was incorrect and did not take into account other duties that the Applicant performed.  He further relied on procedural matters arising from the way in which the meeting on 24 January 1995 was conducted including the employers failure to provide written details of the comparison between Mr Edgell and himself.  The Applicant gave evidence that the real reason that he was dismissed was because of a vindictive campaign against him.

I found the Applicant’s evidence to be unsatisfactory.  His inability to recall many of the matters put to him in cross examination may have resulted from anxiety or for some other reason.  But whatever the cause it rendered much of his evidence unreliable.

In my view the Respondent had a valid reason for the termination of the Applicant’s employment.  His performance during his review period was not marginally poor, it was overwhelmingly inadequate.  His criticisms of the assessments of him were not substantiated by any of the evidence that he chose to put before the Court.

The arguments put forward by the Applicant regarding the lack of procedural fairness afforded to him failed to impress me as anything but technical or illogical and do not render the termination of the Applicant’s employment harsh unjust or unreasonable.

I am satisfied that the Respondent met its obligations pursuant to Section 170DC of the Industrial Relations Act.

The Application is dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the reasons for my judgment.

DATE OF HEARING              :          3 & 5 October 1995

FOR THE APPLICANT          :          Mr Lovell

FOR THE RESPONDENT      :          Mr Smetana