| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 154 |
| Hearing date | 23 Nov 2010 |
| Determination date | 27 July 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | P Baynes (in person) ; D Sim, E Tait |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Baynes v Silver Fern Farms Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incapacity – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed applicant justifiably dismissed as incapable of performing job – Authority found applicant no longer capable of performing job – Found applicant’s engagement as ‘ticket scanner’ temporary arrangement designed to assist rehabilitation and not permanent appointment – Found applicant given opportunity to provide information that may prevent dismissal but declined to do so – Dismissal justified – Packer |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as packer. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant sustained work related injury and ultimately required surgery. Applicant placed on rehabilitation plan after return to work and performed light duties, including ‘ticket scanning’ in later period. Subsequently established applicant not capable of returning to pre-injury job but was able to perform other tasks. Applicant suggested respondent retain applicant as ‘ticket scanner’. Respondent claimed ‘ticket scanning’ part of rotation of tasks performed by workers and not viable for position to remain non-rotational indefinitely. Respondent claimed attempted to organise further meetings to ascertain positions available for applicant but applicant refused to engage in discussion. Applicant claimed appointment as ‘ticket scanner’ permanent and no need to discuss future employment. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed irregularities in respondent’s management of applicant’s injury claim.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority noted delay in issuing determination due to Christchurch earthquake. Authority could not investigate applicant’s complaints about respondent’s management of applicant’s injury claim as applicant had not pursued issues as grievance previously and Authority precluded from examining allegations about management of claims and rehabilitation by Accident Compensation Act 2001. Applicant no longer capable of performing job. Applicant’s engagement as ‘ticket scanner’ temporary arrangement designed to assist rehabilitation and not permanent appointment. Respondent not obligated to restructure business to facilitate applicant’s retention. Applicant given opportunity to provide information that may prevent dismissal but declined to do so. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Accident Compensation Act 2001 s133(5);ERA;ERA s103A;Interpretation Act 1999;Interpretation Act 1999 s4;Interpretation Act 1999 s7 |
| Cases Cited | Motor Machinists Ltd v Craig [1996] 2 ERNZ 585 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_154.pdf [pdf 166 KB] |