| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 89/07 |
| Hearing date | 17 May 2007 |
| Determination date | 01 August 2007 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; V Donaghy |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Le Gros v PPCS Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant employed as spare man, covering absent co-workers in variety of positions – Respondent offered transfer to permanent packer role – Required applicant undergo drug test as condition of appointment – Applicant claimed requiring test was unjustified action affecting his terms and conditions of employment – Respondent argued company policy required applicants to undergo drug test as high risk safety-sensitive position – Respondent also argued offer of employment conditional on drug test and applicant refused to comply – No challenge to legality of policy – Special provision in policy regarding testing for internal transfers – Authority rejected respondent’s argument that policy criteria need not be met for testing to be justifiable – Authority found testing justifiable when three criteria in policy met – First criterion met because applicant was offered new position – Second criterion not met because role of packer not “entirely new role” for applicant – “Entirely” meant wholly or completely – Applicant already familiar with position due to prior role temporarily covering position – Found not necessary to determine third criterion of whether high risk role because already found second criterion not met – Best for employer, Union and/or employees to together assess whether high risk role – Policy criteria not met when applicant was required to undergo testing – Fair and reasonable employer would follow policy without unexpected or arbitrary testing – Request unjustified under policy – Refusal to undergo test resulted in disadvantage because not appointed to new position and request gave applicant belief that work put down and respondent lost trust in him – Remedies – Found applicant $15,000 better off in existing role due to subsequent market forces – No lost wages – Applicant humiliated and suffered upset and stress, which impacted on private relationships – Award of $6,000 appropriate considering that applicant better off in existing employment – No contributory conduct – Spare man |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103(1)(b) |
| Cases Cited | Li v Vice Chancellor of Auckland University of Technology [2006] 3 NZELR 66;NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc and Ors v Air New Zealand Ltd and Anor [2004] 1 ERNZ 614 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 89_07.pdf [pdf 40 KB] |