| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 181/10 |
| Hearing date | 24 May 2010 |
| Determination date | 16 September 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; G French |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Bennett v Tyco Flow Control Pacific Pty Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – GOOD FAITH – Applicant suffered workplace accident and one week later took sick leave – Supervisor did not know applicant intended to seek medical advice for injury as thought looking after wife after surgery – Applicant finally returned to work and restructuring proposal commenced – Applicant claimed suffered disadvantage through way respondent dealt with sick leave – Respondent claimed applicant failed to tell supervisor seeking medical advice about injury – Applicant claimed intended to tell supervisor but conversation ended badly – Authority found respondent surprised to receive medical certificate for sick leave and certificate unsigned and referred to non-workplace injury – Respondent received second medical certificate from practitioner four hours drive away, with different prognosis – Found respondent took all reasonable steps to contact applicant – Found respondent entitled to write to applicant raising questions about sick leave – Found applicant should have told respondent about injury and domestic incident which resulted in applicant being required to leave home – Found respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer by seeking explanation about sick leave – Found applicant had obligation to be communicative with respondent – No disadvantage – No breach of good faith by respondent – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed put on light duties and redundancy sham – Found applicant reintroduced to work slowly so not to risk destabilising rehabilitation – Other staff member made redundant re-employed on fixed term contract – Found open to respondent to offer fixed term position – Respondent claimed dramatic decline in requirements for services – Found no other positions available for redeployment – Found respondent undertook measured and reflective consideration of needs of business – Found no objection to process followed – Redundancy genuine – Dismissal justified – Installer |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4;ERA s103A |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 181_10.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |