Part 2 (50 marks) Please read the questions at the end of the case first. Edith Cowan was hired as a senior lecturer to the Department of Management at the University of Auckland in January, 2023. Edith is British and knew little about New Zealand before teaching her first class in early March, 2023. Almost immediately, things started going wrong in her classes. She arrived 10 minutes late, not having realised that morning classes start on the hour rather than 10 minutes after the hour. Following British convention, Edith also didnt distribute materials in class or post them on the Auckland equivalent of Moodle in advance of class. Also following British convention, she also made minimal use of powerpoint slides. Edith also had a very authoritative lecturing style, with little participative input from students. She talked and they listened; that was how she liked it. For New Zealand students, especially, this was a dramatic departure from how they were used to being taught. Edith also wasnt aware of what had been taught in earlier economics courses during the degree. So, much of her material was a repetition of what students had learned in Economics 100 and Economics 200. The smarter students, in particular, found this annoying. Edith alluded heavily to British products, companies, markets, and examples in all her practical exercises. New Zealand was rarely ever mentioned. After two weeks of classes, many students in Ediths Economics 321 class became very agitated. A meeting was arranged with Don Stranger, the Chair of Department. Don met with 11 students (from a class of 63) and heard a litany of complaints, all related to the issues identified above. He promised to check out the students concerns. The following week, Don popped into the back of one of Ediths classes and took the opportunity to observe her perform for 10 minutes. She was clearly lacking in many of the ways students had identified: she lacked powerpoint slides; her lecturing style was non-participative; her allusions / examples were entirely to/ from Britain; there were no handouts distributed; much of the material was the same as that covered in Economics 100 and 200 courses. On the other hand, Edith wasnt late for class. Satisfied that he had seen enough, Don called a meeting with Edith. Edith arrived at Dons office and asked him what the meeting was about. Don explained that it was about her performance. Don indicated that he wasnt happy at all with Ediths teaching. He told her in no uncertain terms that she was not meeting the students minimum performance expectations, that many had personally complained to him, and that he had checked out their stories and confirmed them to be true from direct observation. Don warned Edith that she would have to improve immediately or risk the consequences. Edith listened patiently to what Don had told her, and then agreed that she would do the best I can do. The meeting was then terminated. Two days later, Don again dropped in to one of Ediths Economics 321 classes. He again wasnt satisfied with what she was doing. Some effort had been made to create powerpoint slides, but there were very few of them. The other problems remained essentially unaddressed. However, what was noticeably different was Edith herself. She came to class dressed in a suit. She was much more dynamic and louder with her voice than before. She was generally a lot more entertaining in her delivery and the students seemed more interested in what she had to say. Undeterred, Don called another brief meeting with Edith for later that day. He told her: your performance is still not up to the standards students expect. Its really not good enough. I must tell you that, if things fail to improve over the next two days, I will have to terminate your employment. Edith, a patient person, sat listening to Don, mildly perplexed. Anxious not to offend him, she retreated hastily from the meeting, agreeing once again to put my best foot forward and do the best I can. On Monday of the following week, Don again dropped in on Ediths class to observe her teaching Economics 321. He again observed that little had changed regarding many of the key issues. This time, however, he noticed that Edith had greatly changed the audio-visual aspects of her delivery. For example, Ediths lecturing was frequently punctuated with short videos of some relevance to what she was teaching. However, she continued to focus on British examples, continued to teach much of the same material as in Economics 100 and 200, and continued with limited direct interaction with the class. Don chose not to have another meeting with Edith, deciding instead to delay meeting with her until hed been to a law seminar on dismissal, with law firm Mornington Duck in two days time. The law seminar convinced Don that firing Edith for unsatisfactory/ poor performance might actually be very difficult. So, Don then decided to proceed with dismissing her for redundancy instead. At the beginning of the following week, Don again called Edith to a meeting. Edith attended, fully expecting again to discuss performance issues. She was then surprised when Don proposed to make her redundant. Don told her that she was no longer needed, that she was surplus to requirements. He told her to go away and think about what I have suggested and that they would reconvene in two days time. Two days later, Don and Edith met again. Edith complained about how shocked she was to hear that Don had proposed making her redundant. She questioned whether a redundancy was really necessary, and, if it was, whether it was appropriate to make her redundant rather than someone else. Don explained that she had been selected on the basis of seniority, she having the least in the department. After listening patiently to Ediths protestations, Don then explained that he understood where she was coming from but that there was nothing I can do. At the end of the meeting, he then handed Edith with a termination letter he had hastily typed 10 minutes before the meeting. In that letter, he explained that Edith was redundant and that she had three months notice, as per the terms of Ediths collective agreement. Edith left the meeting feeling totally dispirited. She liked Don but wasnt quite sure whether he could legally fire her. Edith finally left the university at the end of her three months notice. Don advertised in the Times Higher Education Supplement for a replacement for Edith, teaching the same three courses, one month after she had left. After a four month search process, Harriet Fish accepted the position, and signed the collective agreement. 1. To what extent does Don have substantive grounds for making Edith redundant? Explain. (10 marks) 2. To what extent has Don been procedurally fair in making Edith redundant? Explain. Be sure to acknowledge what was done properly and improperly. (20 marks) 3. To what extent does Don have substantive grounds for dismissing Edith for poor / unsatisfactory performance? Explain. (20 marks)