Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2017] NZERA Christchurch 12
Hearing date 18 and 19 Oct 2016 (2 days)
Determination date 23 January 2017
Member H Doyle
Representation S Zindel ; P McBride
Location Nelson
Parties Watt v Nelson/Marlborough District Health Board
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether applicant permanent or casual employee – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incapacity - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by failure to offer further shifts – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Nurse
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant casual employee at relevant date.UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent considered applicant to still be part of casual pool subject to medical fitness to return to work. No deliberate decision made not to offer applicant shifts. No dismissal. Respondent not required to offer applicant shifts until applicant medically fit to return to work. No light duties available for casual employees. Applicant not disadvantaged by failure to offer shifts as applicant unable to perform duties. No unjustified disadvantage.
Result Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s66 ; ERA s66(6) ; ERA s66(6)(a)
Cases Cited Bay of Plenty Health Board v Rahiri [2016] NZEmpC 67 ; Hull v Department of Labour ERA Auckland AA68/06, 9 March 2006 ; Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [2009] ERNZ 225 (EmpC) ; MacDonald v Canoe Racing New Zealand [2011] NZERA Auckland 60 ; Muldoon v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [2011] NZEmpC 103, [2011] ERNZ 271 ; Savage v Capital & Coast District Health Board [2016] NZEmpC 83 ; Schneller v Ranworth Healthcare Ltd (2007) 4 NZELR 463 (EmpC) ; Thompson v Tauranga Environment Centre Charitable Trust [2011] NZERA Auckland 184 ; Watt v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [2016] NZERA Christchurch 46
Number of Pages 25
PDF File Link: 2017_NZERA_Christchurch_12.pdf [pdf 307 KB]