| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2018] NZERA Christchurch 15 |
| Hearing date | 29-Nov-17 30-Nov-17 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 09 February 2018 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | K Coulston ; L Vincent |
| Location | Timaru |
| Parties | Shanks v Alliance Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondents actions and failures to act – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – RECOMMENDATION – Applicant sought Authority recommendation in relation to workplace conduct or practices – Packer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: No dispute that applicant was subjected to unacceptable verbal abuse. Actions of other employee toward applicant were not an action from employer and could not be said to be caused by employer. Applicant not disadvantaged by being verbally abused by a supervisor. Respondent not responsible for applicant’s fear at being asked to attend a meeting. Applicant had right to leave at end of her shift unless arrangements made for overtime. Applicant was disadvantaged by being required to attend meeting after her shift was finished. No fair and reasonable employer could have required her to attend a meeting at the end of a shift. At time meeting took place respondent was not aware applicant was upset. Even if applicant being instructed to attend meeting 20 minutes after abuse was disadvantageous to her employment it was not due to an unjustified action of respondent. At time of meeting respondent did not know of abuse. Applicant suffered disadvantage by supervisor being in meeting shortly after he abused her but not due to unjustified action of respondent. Applicant subject to unjustified disadvantage when she was shouted at in a meeting and was not allowed an opportunity to have a representative at the meeting. Applicant disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to explore ways of ensuring she was safe in the workplace. Respondent failed to advise applicant of process and procedure that would be followed in course of investigating her complaint. Applicant not interviewed by respondent and not allowed a chance to explain her complaint. REMEDIES: Reinstatement of sick leave declined. $10,000 compensation appropriate. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – RECOMMENDATION: Recommended respondent formally adopt the WorkSafe guidance to investigate bullying in workplace. Recommended that any personal grievance received by respondent be treated as an employment relationship problem that requires an attempt at resolution. |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Recommendations made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4 ERA s103 ERA s103A ERA s103(1)(b) ERA s124 Human Rights Act 1993 s68(3) |
| Cases Cited | Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29 Murphy and Routhan (t/a Enzo’s Pizza) v Van Beek [1998] 2 ERNZ 607 (EmpC) Spotless Facility Services NZ Ltd v Mackay (No 2) [2017] NZEmpC 15 Waikato District Health Board v Archibald [2017] NZEmpC 132 |
| Number of Pages | 42 |
| PDF File Link: | 2018_NZERA_Christchurch_15.pdf [pdf 157 KB] |