| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 102/10 |
| Hearing date | 25 Mar 2010 |
| Determination date | 29 April 2010 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | A Sharma ; M Kirk |
| Location | Nelson |
| Parties | O'Connor v Anchor Press Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Incapacity – Applicant claimed suffered disadvantage as respondent failed to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing applicant to unnecessary risk of injury – Claimed unjustifiably dismissed for medical incapacity caused by work conditions – Respondent argued no breach of obligation to provide safe and healthy workplace – Argued dismissal justified as incapacity rendered applicant unable to perform employment duties and proper procedures followed – Applicant operated printing machine (“Roland”) – Applicant claimed developed health problems with left arm due to operating Roland – Conflict of evidence whether raised health matters with respondent – Following year, applicant sought medical certificate restricting applicant to light duties – Medical certificate provided injury attributable to accident that occurred last year – Respondent knew nothing of any accident until received certificate – No documents recorded alleged accident – Respondent unsuccessfully attempted to find light duties – Applicant ceased work for one month – Second medical certificate restricted use of left arm for three weeks – Applicant agreed to return to work to assist operating Roland – Applicant resumed duties with assistance of other staff – Applicant not required to operate Roland - Conflict of evidence whether applicant advised respondent arm sore while performing duties – Applicant subsequently certified fully unfit to work until next month – Applicant raised unjustified disadvantage personal grievance – Respondent sought further medical information from applicant – Parties met to discuss applicant’s incapacity – Applicant unable to return to work within acceptable time - Respondent concluded, in interest of business, unable to keep applicant’s position open – Applicant dismissed – Respondent’s evidence preferred – Authority found no compensation could be claimed for disadvantage grievance pursuant to s 317 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (“IPRCA”) – Found respondent took reasonable steps after receiving first medical certificate – Found applicant agreed to return to work to assist respondent and no evidence required to use injured arm – Found no breach of obligations to provide safe workplace by respondent – Noted breach of obligation claim ran into IPRCA limitation - Found no disadvantage – Found applicant incapable of proper performance of duties – Found respondent took reasonable steps to consult applicant and gave applicant opportunity for advice and representation – Found respondent consulted with applicant with open mind – Found applicant did not know when able to return as no set date to see specialist at time of dismissal – Dismissal justified – Printer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 s317 |
| Cases Cited | Attorney-General v Gilbert [2002] 1 ERNZ 31;Hosking v Coastal Fish Supplies Ltd [1985] ACJ 124 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 102_10.pdf [pdf 49 KB] |