| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 63 |
| Hearing date | 8 Sep 2010 |
| Determination date | 18 February 2011 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | M Whitehead ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rubie v Brambles New Zealand Ltd t/a Recall New Zealand |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged through written warning issued by respondent – Respondent claimed warning justified because applicant failed to adhere to respondent’s safety reporting procedures and engaged in misleading and deceptive behaviour – Applicant injured arm while working and aggravated injury at home so unable to work next two days – Respondent surprised applicant suffered work related injury as applicant advised simply unwell – Respondent claimed employees asked to see company doctor about work related injuries – Applicant invited to attend meeting about work related injury – Respondent claimed applicant failed to report work related injury and failed to report reason for non-attendance – Applicant issued with final written warning – Respondent reduced duration of warning from duration of employment to 12 months – Authority found imposition of warning potentially made employment less secure – Found applicant disadvantaged in employment – Found no clear policy employees required to attend company doctor – Found applicant aware of requirements to attend company doctor – Applicant claimed respondent gave other employees more assistance in ensuring they complied with company policy – Found no disparity of treatment – Respondent claimed applicant mislead and deliberately deceived supervisor as to reasons for absence – Found applicant not deliberately deceptive – Found applicant had aversion to being placed on light duties and deliberately misled supervisor – Found action constituted misconduct and warranted disciplinary action – Found issuing of final warning unfair and unreasonable – Found involvement of so many senior managers overreaction – Found not surprising applicant felt under particular scrutiny and less secure in employment – Found applicant had unblemished 10 year record – Found reduction in duration of warning probably brought about by realisation such duration could not survive legal challenge – Unjustified disadvantage – REMEDIES – 80 percent contributory conduct – Final warning to be replaced with first written warning – $5,000 compensation appropriate subject to reduction for contributory conduct – Information Centre Specialist |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000 reduced to $1,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Alliance Freezing Co (Southland) Ltd v NZ Engineering etc IUOW (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 575;Matthes v New Zealand Post Ltd [1994] ERNZ 994 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_63.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |