| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 92/08 |
| Hearing date | 27 Mar 2008 |
| Determination date | 03 July 2008 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Butler ; H Matthews |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Broughton v Plane Biz Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Poor performance – Applicant accepted suffered health problems and substance abuse issues which impacted negatively on employment – Authority found applicant’s common response when confronted by inadequacies was to threaten resignation – Respondent’s witnesses argued applicant offered resignation seven times – Applicant accepted offered resignation at least three times – Authority found clear respondent had some idea about applicant’s health and substance abuses – Authority found strong sense from evidence that applicant could be useful member of team if solved health and substance abuse issues – First dismissal occurred after respondent took exception to staff rearrangements by respondent – Applicant sought to be relieved of supervisor role and to revert to other role – Respondent took applicant’s request as resignation as other role not available – Applicant’s raised grievance resolved with mediated settlement – Parties agreed applicant be reinstated – Authority found respondent took prudent steps to reinstatement when aware other staff opposed reinstatement – Respondent argued happier workplace when applicant absent – Second dismissal occurred after applicant had minor verbal disagreement with co-worker – Applicant sent home after respondent concluded not safe for applicant to remain at workplace – Respondent met with applicant upon return to work and applicant disclosed suffering from major depressive illness – Applicant told respondent extensive alcohol use nullifying effect of anti-depressive medicine – Applicant argued wanted to remain with respondent and submitted proposal to undergo random drug testing and provide evidence attending doctor – Respondent concluded been in same position before and did not think applicant capable of change – Applicant dismissed – Authority concluded reinstatement impractical due to effort required to accommodate applicant – Authority found no separate disadvantage grievance as claimed by applicant – Authority found applicant never properly put on notice behavior put position in jeopardy – Authority found no warnings issued and minor incident catalyst for respondent losing patience with applicant’s health and substance problems – Found fair and reasonable employer would have conducted more thorough investigation whether applicant’s reassurances could be relied upon – Found conclusion based on what applicant’s medical advisers said not enough – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Found applicant made significant contribution to own misfortunes – Authority found not appropriate to apportion blame for suffering ill health – Authority removed from any contribution element applicant’s depressive illness – Authority found 50 percent contributory conduct appropriate – Authority found $2000 compensation after reduction for contributory conduct appropriate |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000 reduced to $2,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s125;ERA s123(1)(a) |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 92_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |