| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 114 |
| Hearing date | 21 Jul 2011 |
| Determination date | 29 July 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Barrow (in person) ; C Saunders |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Barrow v Sandblasting Specialists Otago Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed demoted applicant because applicant said could no longer work with paint fumes which were part and parcel of respondent’s business – Respondent claimed applicant offered alternative employment which applicant did not take up – Authority found applicant not dismissed by email – Found email from respondent consequence of applicant’s health issues and partly because of applicant’s failure to discuss matters with respondent – Found management position no longer available to applicant but other positions were – Found applicant suffered no disadvantage – Found position had to terminate because applicant claimed could no longer work with paint – Found respondent offered applicant continued employment but not exposed to paint fumes – Found applicant refused to engage with respondent – Found only evidence provided to respondent by applicant was ACC injury claim and medical certificate – Found applicant claimed in various text messages unable to work for three months – Found respondent tried to discuss matters with applicant – No dismissal – Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_114.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |