| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 116/09 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jun 2009 |
| Determination date | 31 July 2009 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A Sharma ; J Goldstein |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | Hollis-Owen v The Wood Life Care 2007 Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed, unfairly suspended, and unfairly disadvantaged – Respondent informed applicant had taken diazepam (Valium) tablet prescribed for resident while on duty – Applicant suspended while allegations investigated – Applicant acknowledged took tablet and offered apology two days before disciplinary meeting – Applicant dismissed following disciplinary meeting – Applicant usually carried prescribed medicine to alleviate onset of migraine headaches – Applicant claimed took discarded diazepam when migraine developed and discovered no medication – Authority rejected applicant’s argument respondent had no policy regarding discarded drugs – Authority found appeared copy of policy in place when diazepam consumed – Applicant claimed only took half tablet while co-worker (“R”) claimed took whole tablet – R claimed did not express concerns earlier because applicant R’s senior – Authority found no reason for R to lie because genuinely concerned about applicant – Applicant argued unable to take alternative action because onset of migraine occurred quickly – Authority found alternatives available but applicant chose course of action ultimately resulting in dismissal – Authority found applicant complained to manager (“B”) that stressed and feeling unsupported day before admitted taking diazepam – B argued knew applicant suffered migraines but not while at work – B argued applicant should have obtained medical help immediately – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence applicant indicated did not require support person for disciplinary meeting – No disadvantage – Respondent argued when applicant conceded taking diazepam was first time told onset of migraine precipitating cause for taking diazepam – Respondent argued fact applicant had migraine immaterial – Argued issue whether applicant ought to have taken somebody else’s prescription medicine without employer’s authority and continued to work – Authority found respondent conducted full inquiry into facts notwithstanding applicant conceded taking diazepam – Found applicant took medication without lawful excuse and effectively self-prescribed in circumstances where had no legal or moral authority – Found applicant as registered nurse had professional obligations under nurse’s code of conduct which prohibited such behaviour – Dismissal justified – Registered nurse |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 116_09.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |