| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 123/06 |
| Hearing date | 6 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 14 August 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Goldstein ; S Hornsby-Geluk |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Rance v Christchurch City Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed respondent failed to provide safe workplace, and breached employment agreement - Applicant's team under resourced - Due to applicant's concerns immediate manager (G") recommended secondment - Manager ("P") declined recommendation - Denied G told her applicant stressed - G sent applicant email that team members unhappy with his management - Suffered breakdown and took sick leave for almost a year - Returned to work in lower salaried role - Whether applicant fulfilled legal obligations to notify respondent of situation and extent respondent knew of situation - G reluctant to articulate to senior management conclusion applicant stressed - Not necessary employers receive explicit notification using appropriate terminology - Where evidence suggested employer received message and endeavoured to do something about it, matter put beyond doubt - Occupational report assessed applicant as exhibiting "dangerous levels of stress" - Report disseminated before P and HR manager employed and not widely circulated - No evidence other senior managers made aware of applicant's stress - Secondment proposal turned down as respondent's policies and procedures not followed - Had message applicant needed help got through, respondent would have immediately taken steps to protect him - Either senior management not told about applicant's ill health or what was told not sufficiently graphic - Onus on respondent to ensure its systems and human resourcing did not subject employees to stress - Evidence failed to disclose work inherently stressful - Applicant not, by virtue of doing more work than otherwise expected, doing inherently stressful work - Fact G knew and acknowledged applicant's distress pivotal - Medical advice showed workplace stressors material factor of illness - Respondent knew or ought to have known of significant harm applicant faced - Unjustified disadvantage - Remedies - All three causes of action relied on same facts - Sufficient to apportion remedies in relation to personal grievance - Grievance caused diminution of sick and annual leave entitlement - Parties directed to identify value of leave lost and agree basis for reimbursement - Awarded lost wages equivalent to shortfall between old and new lower salaried role for one year - Length of service 21 years until alleged disadvantage - Engineer" |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($20,000) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($12,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | HSE |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31 (CA);Whelan v Attorney-General [2004] 2 ERNZ 554 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 123_06.pdf [pdf 64 KB] |