| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 82/09 |
| Hearing date | 8 Oct 2008 |
| Determination date | 16 June 2009 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | R Brazil ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Moir v Coles Myer New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Respondent’s evidence preferred - Applicant claimed bullying, no gradual return to work, failure to pay wages and breach of good faith obligations – Respondent argued dismissal justified for failure to follow reasonable directions, proper procedures followed and no breach of good faith – Applicant developed work-related injuries and sought sick leave – Manager (“C”) held meeting raising concerns tasks incomplete – Applicant claimed insufficient training and needed detailed list to perform duties – Applicant declined C’s directions to undertake training – Applicant returned to work and sought reinstatement to former position – Respondent replied position required full-time employee and applicant fit for only part-time work – Applicant declined alternative positions offered – Applicant’s sick leave entitlement ended and wages paid on hours worked basis – Applicant claimed entitled to full-time wages – Personal grievance raised – Applicant continued to decline part-time positions – C advised applicant refusal could affect ongoing employment relations and would suspend applicant – Applicant left workplace and later confirmed to C not returning to work – Applicant dismissed – Authority found dismissal justified for applicant’s repeated refusal to return to work despite C’s attempts to accommodate applicant’s medical condition – Found C entitled to advise wages paid on hours worked basis after sick leave ended – Found gradual return to work implemented – Found no evidence of bullying – Found applicant warned of dismissal and available part-time positions exhausted – Found applicant provided no explanations for why positions unsuitable – Found C responsive and applicant non-communicative – Found no breach of good faith - Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to respond to health and safety risks – Applicant raised health and safety concerns with respondent, however response delayed – Authority found delayed response caused applicant unjustified disadvantage – Found C conceded work stations not assessed for suitability for incoming employees and health and safety committee report deficient – Disadvantage unjustified – REMEDIES – No contributory conduct – Found compensation of $4,000 appropriate – Administration Assistant |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) (Beach of good faith) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103;ERA s103A;ERA s122;ERA s136(2) |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 82_09.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |