Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 79/07
Hearing date 19 Mar 2007
Determination date 19 March 2007
Member V Campbell
Representation A McInally ; K Thompson
Location Auckland
Parties Raddock v Air New Zealand Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant alleged disadvantaged when randomly selected to take drug test – Applicant’s role considered “safety sensitive” under respondent’s drug testing policy – Policy already considered in NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc and Ors v Air New Zealand Ltd and Anor (cited below) - Pursuant to Employment Court directive, respondent consulted with applicant’s union on definition of “safety sensitive” areas and roles – Union responsible for obtaining feedback from members – Applicant claimed personally not consulted and failure meant unaware role caught in random testing regime – Authority did not accept applicant unaware role caught in classification of “safety sensitive” – Respondent met obligations to consult union and affected employees – Not satisfied applicant disadvantaged – Even if random selection amounted to disadvantage, Authority not satisfied unjustified – Also, applicant took test and returned negative result – No further action taken by respondent – Evidence did not go far enough to justify disadvantage finding – Had applicant refused test and been subject to investigation and disciplinary action, result may have been different – No unjustified disadvantage – Length of service not specified - Logistics Controller
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4;ERA s103(1)(b);ERA s103A
Cases Cited NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2004] 1 ERNZ 614;Wellington Area Health Board v Wellington Hotel IUOW [1992] 2 ERNZ 466 ; [1992] 3 NZLR 658
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: aa 79_07.pdf [pdf 47 KB]