| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 87/07 |
| Hearing date | 17 Apr 2007 |
| Determination date | 30 July 2007 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | D Beck ; G Jones |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Armon v Bridgestone New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant lodged ACC claim for work related injury of carpel tunnel syndrome – Respondent contracted third party (“CRM”) to independently manage employee work related injury claims – Applicant’s claim accepted and underwent surgery – Upon return to work applicant agreed to placement on Average Earnings (“AE”) scheme allowing him to produce lower volume of tyres – Respondent argued applicant placed on scheme to assist recovery after surgery – Applicant received second consultation and diagnosed with ulnar neuritis – New ACC claim lodged and certificate issued stating applicant unavailable to resume normal duties for 90 days – Applicant placed on light duties unrelated to tyre building, however, worked full hours – CRM initially accepted claim, however later revoked decision – Applicant sought review of CRM decision with ACC – Met with respondents manager to discuss applicant’s inability to perform duties – Company attendance records showed applicant regularly absent from work – Respondent decided applicant’s ongoing and prolonged physical incapacity meant payment would only be made for hours actually worked – Also decided applicant would be transferred to service pool and if unable to work full shift in future, employment would be terminated – Applicant told there would be ongoing consultation and monitoring of condition – Applicant’s employment terminated two months later due to uncertain length of incapacity – Applicant claimed disadvantaged by respondent and CRM not maintaining regular contact and consultation – Also claimed dismissal unjustified and discriminatory due to selection on grounds of disability – Respondent took cautious approach and placed applicant on AE scheme when applicant had initially sought full duties – Clear from email traffic that respondent diligently adhered to consultation procedure agreed to between parties – Individual rehabilitation plan stated applicant responsible for ensuring abstained from any activity that re-aggravated injury – Applicant claimed respondent failed to await outcome of ACC review before decision to dismiss made – Authority found respondent not hasty in making decision to dismiss – Respondent allowed to balance business interests with ongoing employment of applicant – Respondent not bound to await outcome of various processes – Authority found viewing matter overall no grounds to find breach of duty or discriminatory behaviour by respondent – No unjustified disadvantage – No unjustified dismissal – Tyre builder |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Innes-Smith v Wood [1998] 3 ERNZ 1298 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 87_07.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |