Sacked mechanic couldn't identify an air filter

Photo / Thinkstock

A mechanic who could not drive or fix cars or even activate a brake light was sacked from an Auckland garage for misleading his employer.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has found Dapeng Qin was justifiably dismissed from Trust Worthy Automotive because he misrepresented his qualifications, experience and eligibility for work during his job interview.

It also found Mr Qin suffered a personal grievance because he was not paid for his work at the garage - but it ruled out compensation because he would not have been hired if he was up-front about his skills.

Mr Qin, a recent arrival from China, showed up unannounced at the Morningside workshop after he saw an advertisement for an assistant mechanic on a Chinese website in March.

Company director Kun Xu agreed to take him on after Mr Qin told him he could drive, was experienced at fixing gearboxes and was eligible for work in New Zealand.

But Mr Xu was immediately discouraged by Mr Qin's performance on his first day after it became apparent he could not drive and knew nothing at all about cars or how to fix them.

Mr Qin did not know how to work brake lights, could not find various switches and did not know what an air filter was or where to find it.

Mr Xu told the authority Mr Qin was lazy, took long breaks and seemed more interested in texting or talking to customers than learning how to do the job.

He tried to let Mr Qin down gently, but Mr Qin asked for another day to prove himself - after which Mr Xu stood by his decision to let him go.

Mr Qin was not paid for his work because Mr Xu said it was standard to take on new workers as unpaid volunteers to establish if they were suitable employees.

Mr Qin took a personal grievance case against the garage, claiming he was unjustifiably dismissed and should have been paid for his work.

He told the authority he had never told Mr Xu he could fix gearboxes, but had said he had designed gearboxes for small cars in China.

He also said he had never claimed he could drive.

ERA member James Crichton found the company was justified in dismissing Mr Qin, noting he had misled Mr Xu about his qualifications and experience.

"It is difficult to see how a young man who cannot drive can be of any use in a workshop that fixes cars. Equally, the authority cannot conceive how an employee who knows little about the workings of a motor car can be expected to participate in the repair of it."

Mr Qin also misled the company about his work eligibility, because he did not reveal his working holiday visa allowed him to work for only three months.

The authority also found against the company, finding Mr Qin suffered an unjustified disadvantage because he was hired without documentation or pay.

However, it ruled out compensation for Mr Qin because he was wholly responsible for the circumstances giving rise to his personal grievance.

Mr Crichton admonished the company for its practice of hiring workers without documentation or pay, noting it could legally hire workers for a trial period if it stuck to the law.

Costs were reserved.