| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 211/10 |
| Hearing date | 12 Aug 2010 - 13 Aug 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 18 November 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | T Oldfield ; M Lawlor, K Marshall |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Hooper v Coca-Cola Amatil (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent decided to drug test 6 employees who respondent had reasonable cause to suspect using drugs – Applicant chosen for test – Applicant consented to test and admitted drug use – Test showed applicant 20 times over limit – Following disciplinary process respondent concluded applicant guilty of serious misconduct and dismissal appropriate sanction – Drug and alcohol policy mandated testing where “incident”, reasonable cause of consumption during work hours or worker impaired and no other likely explanation – Collective Employment Agreement provided for reasonable suspicion drug testing – Private investigator hired to investigate extent of problem – Respondent argued had observed applicant smoking what appeared to be cannabis during lunch break – Authority found no requirement respondent to find impairment and also identify reasonable belief consumption occurring during work hours – Found respondent invoked leg requiring reasonable belief drug consumption occurring during work hours – Found perfectly reasonable decision for respondent to make in all circumstances that drug test appropriate – Found reasonable cause was reasonable cause to suspect drug use during working hours – Found no requirement on respondent to identify incident or impairment if reliance placed on reasonable belief drug consumption took place – Authority noted health and safety obligations of good and fair employer to take all practicable steps to protect employees from harm – Found all appropriate information provided to applicant – Found available to fair and reasonable employer to conclude applicant likely to be impaired by heavy and regular cannabis use that more likely than not applicant actually using drugs at work – Found fair and reasonable employer could properly conclude given magnitude of test result was redolent of impairment or evidence employee attended work under influence – Found no unjustified dismissal – Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 211_10.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |