| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 294 |
| Hearing date | 30 Apr 2014 |
| Determination date | 10 July 2014 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | A Twaddle ; S Scott |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Gourley v Industrial Site Services Co Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - GOOD FAITH - HEALTH AND SAFETY - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's breach of good faith and failure to take all reasonably practicable steps to secure applicant's safety - Triangular employment relationship - Whether applicant worked unharnessed in conditions deemed unsafe by mine operator (N") - Access to worksite revoked by N - Applicant not offered further work - Whether applicant casual employee - PENALTY - GOOD FAITH - Applicant sought penalty for respondent's breach of good faith and breach of health and safety obligations" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - GOOD FAITH - HEALTH AND SAFETY: Applicant worked reasonably regularly during employment but came and went as pleased without applying for leave. Applicant paid holiday pay inclusive of hourly rate. Applicant entitled to expect offers of regular work. Applicant must have known N's investigation into incident could have resulted in access to worksite being revoked and respondent being unable to offer applicant further work. Respondent not entitled to simply accept N's findings and decisions without any involvement with applicant. Applicant entitled to have discussion with respondent about issues such as possible reintegration at N and alternative employment options. Respondent's discussions with applicant commenced too late and only at applicant's initiative. Respondent's failure to notify applicant that employment in jeopardy or investigate situation failure to be active and constructive in maintaining productive employment relationship. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's breach of good faith and failure to discuss future of applicant's employment. Respondent's health and safety practices not ideal but applicant did not believe had been put in unsafe position. Applicant not unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to take all reasonably practicable steps to secure applicant's safety. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. $3,000 compensation appropriate.;PENALTY: Penalties not necessary where applicant compensated already for manner of treatment by respondent. No penalty. |
| Result | Application granted (unjustified disadvantage - good faith) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Applications dismissed (unjustified disadvantage - health and safety)(penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_294.pdf [pdf 161 KB] |