| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 15/08 |
| Hearing date | 8 Feb 2008 |
| Determination date | 18 February 2008 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | N Ironside ; R Towner |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | George v Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Prior to hang gliding accident applicant employed by respondent in managerial position – After accident applicant returned to work in part-time capacity and carried out administrative work – Applicant given notice of dismissal when did not return to pre-accident role after six months – Determination solely addressed interim reinstatement claim – ACC sought applicant undergo neuropsychological assessment – Applicant provided assessment report to manager which recommended graduated return to work programme (“GRWP”) – Report also identified alternative work options for applicant – Applicant claimed upon return to work offered computer work but nothing related to previous managerial role – Also claimed no discussion with respondent about GRWP – Applicant met with respondent’s manager (“C”) and ACC case manager and told further assessment needed before could start GRWP – Applicant claimed second meeting held where told for first time possibility of new job if unable to perform previous managerial position – C argued after not receiving copy of initial medical assessment report sought update from applicant’s case manager – Authority found C’s evidence did not go as far as advising applicant that respondent considered terminating employment in light of reports recommending GRWP – Meeting held where applicant claimed informed employee in applicant’s previous managerial position being head hunted by another employer – Second meeting held where applicant claimed told by respondent that could not keep old managerial position open and given one months’ notice of termination – Respondent accepted arguable case of unjustified dismissal – Authority noted applicant’s previous managerial role complex and demanding – Authority found distinctly arguable respondent did not fairly inquire into applicant’s capacity to return to managerial position – Applicant claimed did not know risked dismissal until given notice at second meeting – Authority found problems in communicating issues gave rise to strongly arguable grievance not strongly arguable case for permanent reinstatement – Authority noted GRWP reports predicated on applicant returning to pre-accident role – However, medical reports assessed applicant’s medical capacity for other roles identified by initial occupational assessment report – Applicant also argued respondent pre-determined dismissal by seeking to permanently appoint temporary employee when found out employee being head hunted – Authority found potential financial consequence of not ordering reinstatement pending substantive determination not a compelling factor – Authority saw most telling point supporting interim reinstatement was desirability to maintain employment relationship in event permanent reinstatement finally ordered – Authority noted element of uncertainty reading reports as to applicant’s capacity to perform pre-injury role – Authority concluded while balance of convenience supported form of interim reinstatement should not be on basis that respondent require applicant gradually return to pre-injury position – Authority found in circumstances appropriate to limit effect of injunction – Interim reinstatement ordered on garden leave basis subject to undertaking as to damages and further order of Authority – Interim reinstatement subject to condition that at respondent’s discretion applicant may perform pre-injury work as part of GRWP |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved ; Interim reinstatement ordered |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 15_08.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |