| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 280/06 |
| Hearing date | 9 Aug 2006 |
| Determination date | 04 September 2006 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | G Service ; K Stretton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | ABB Ltd v Dohrman |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Applicant sought declaration instruction to respondent lawful and reasonable, and order respondent comply with instruction and perform duties under employment agreement - Applicant provided engineering and maintenance services to clients on site - Previous three years respondent worked for one client - Instructed to work for another client - Refused and received written warning - Refused because of health and safety concerns, belief other options available and thought move would be backward step for him - Applicant alleged new site stressful - Authority did not accept risk to respondent's health arose from new site - Nothing in work or behaviour of employees at new site that could be reasonable described as unsafe or creating an unsafe environment - Respondent really saying did not want to work at new site because did not like it there - Interactions respondent objected to not outside normal range of workplace interactions and could not reasonably be described as workplace hazards from which respondent must be protected - Decision made for genuine business reasons - Not open to respondent or Authority to substitute their views on appropriate deployment of staff for applicant's - Respondent intransigent and unreasonably dismissive of applicant's efforts to address concerns - Applicant's instruction to respondent lawful and reasonable - However, in circumstances Authority did not consider it wise to order respondent to comply with instruction - Not in either party's interests to attempt to force respondent to work on site to which so rigidly objected - Order for compliance not considered practical solution - Better for respondent to acknowledge applicant entitled to instruct him to work at new site and risked dismissal if did not - Parties directed to mediation - Length of service 26 years - Engineer |
| Result | Question answered in favour of applicant ; Parties directed to mediation ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | HSE;HSE s28A |
| Cases Cited | Makeham v New Plymouth District Council [2005] 1 ERNZ 49;NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union v Honda NZ Ltd [1989] 3 NZILR 791 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 280_06.pdf [pdf 52 KB] |