| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 94 |
| Hearing date | 20 Feb 2015 |
| Determination date | 27 March 2015 |
| Member | TG Tetitaha |
| Representation | P Swarbrick ; (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wallace v Titoki Securities Trust |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Incapacity - Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent's failure to provide safe workplace and exposure to chemicals - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether applicant required to provide training in leaky home - Supervisor / trainer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Alleged chemical exposure fell within definition of personal injury caused by work-related gradual process. No jurisdiction to consider unjustified disadvantage claim relating to chemical exposure. No specified breaches of health and safety policies identified by applicant and no evidence of lack of health and safety policies. No jurisdiction for Authority to consider claims about breaches of Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. All recommended safety equipment provided with exception of safety glasses. Failure to provide safety glasses rectified promptly and did not cause alleged harm suffered by applicant. No evidence of defects in respondent's assessment of worksite. No unjustified disadvantage. No certainty respondent at fault for applicant's injuries and respondent could not hold applicant's job open further in circumstances including three months' absence from work. Applicant did not take substantial opportunities to explain ability to return to work and engaged in vitriolic correspondence with respondent. Nature and tone of respondent's correspondence not harassing or bullying. No evidence of false statements made by respondent to colleagues, or predetermination. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Accident Compensation Act 2001;Accident Compensation Act 2001 s318;Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s6;Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s72;ERA;ERA s103(1)(b);HSE;HSE s49 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland and Tomoana Freezing Works etc IUOW v Wilson Foods Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 939 (LC);Canterbury Clerical Workers IUOW v Andrews and Beaven Ltd [1983] ACJ 875 (AC);Canterbury Clerical Workers IUOW v Printing & Packaging Corp Ltd [1988] NZILR 1213 (LC);Motor Machinists Ltd v Craig [1996] 2 ERNZ 585 (EmpC);Northern Club, Auckland v Northern Hotel etc IUOW [1989] 1 NZILR 764 (LC);Reid v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [1996] 1 ERNZ 228 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_94.pdf [pdf 233 KB] |