Cases

Notable cases, based in Palmerston North, where Workplace Law Specialists have appeared as counsel include:

Sandra Wilson v Pet Stay Limited [2013] NZERA Wellington 28

Workplace Law Specialists acted for Pet Stay Limited, a boarding kennel who employed Ms Wilson. Pet Stay Limited raised numerous concerns in relation to Ms Wilson’s behaviour and requested that Ms Wilson attend a disciplinary meeting. Ms Wilson continually refused to attend that meeting.
On the advice of Workplace Law Specialists, Pet Stay advised Ms Wilson that her continued failure to attend the meeting would result in a decision, up to and including dismissal, being made in her absence on the information currently available.
After Ms Wilson’s failure to attend the fourth researched meeting, Pet Stay made the decision to dismiss Ms Wilson, who in turn, raised a personal grievance in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
Workplace Law Specialists successfully defended the personal grievance claim with the ERA determining that Pet Stay was justified in proceeding with the meeting which resulted in the decision to dismiss Ms Wilson. This was because Ms Wilson had been put on notice that her continued non-attended would result in a decision being made in her absence, with the information available to the employer.

Mark Brokenshire v Spotless Facility Services (New Zealand) Limited [2017] NZERA Wellington 7

Workplace Law Specialists acted for Mr Brokenshire, a maintenance supervisor at Ohakea Air base, who brought a claim of unjustified dismissal and outstanding holiday pay.
Mr Brokenshire was dismissed following his management of a meeting where he circulated a letter stating that, with specified exceptions, employers were not to take trade vehicles off-site outside of working hours. The meeting quickly grew rowdy with reports of swearing and derogatory comments being made by both Mr Brokenshire and trade staff. Mr Brokenshire thought he had been directed to raise the issue with staff, however, it was contended that Mr Brokenshire had been instructed by his manager to not discuss the vehicle issue.
Numerous complaints about Mr Brokenshire’s behaviour arose from the meeting and an investigation into Mr Brokenshire’s conduct was undertaken.
Workplace Law Specialists successfully argued that Mr Brokenshire’s dismissal was unjustified.
The ERA found that Spotless’ investigation was significantly flawed resulting in his unjustifiable dismissal.
Mr Brokenshire’s only opportunity to respond to the allegations were at a “disciplinary investigation meeting” which ended in his dismissal. Further procedural issues occurred including failure to interview Mr Brokenshire as part of the investigation and before the disciplinary process commenced; failure to explore disputed evidence; and failure to put to Mr Brokenshire allegations that formed part of the investigation.
A further flaw was found in the adverse opinion the investigator acknowledged he had formed of Mr Brokenshire on the basis of untested assertions by Mr Brokenshire’s managers. It was further found that Mr Brokenshire, in circulating the letter, had followed what he could have reasonably interpreted as instructions from his manager.
In relation to Mr Brokenshire’s holiday pay claim, it was determined at Mr Brokenshire had worked on a day for which one day’s annual leave had been deducted from his holiday entitlement.
The ERA ordered Spotless to pay Mr Brokenshire $6,750.00 as compensation for hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings under s123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and $13,500.00 gross for lost salary plus one day’s holiday pay.

Holmes v Fonterra (Work Aon)

Workplace Law Specialists successfully represented Ms Holmes, in two reviews conducted by Fairway Resolution Limited, under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”).
In 2018, Ms Holmes suffered a personal injury while carrying out a lifting-based task at her workplace. The matter was referred to WorkAon, her employer’s accredited ACC provider, who declined coverage for both a work injury and a work-related gradual process injury.
Workplace Law Specialists successfully appealed this decision, arguing that WorkAon had failed to consider the question of whether the applicant had suffered a work related gradual process injury. Fairway agreed, considering that WorkAon had not properly investigated this matter, nor obtained a reliable medical assessment. Accordingly, WorkAon’s decision to decline Ms Holmes’ claim was quashed.
Directions to obtain a further medical case review with a suitably qualified occupational physician were made, with the view to clarify whether the applicant had suffered a work related gradual process injury. Subsequently, WorkAon issued a second decision to decline Ms Homles’ application which was against, successfully appealed.
In the second review, Workplace Law Specialists successfully argued that Ms Homes’ injury fell within the definition of a work-related gradual process injury under section 26(b) of the Act, in that the nature of Ms Holmes’ work caused, or contributed to the cause of her injury.
Fairway agreed and found that subacromial bursitis in the shoulder did qualify as a workplace gradual process injury. This was because the condition developed over time as a result of Ms Holmes’ work as a laboratory technician which involved highly repetitive tasks, at high frequency and in awkward positions with her arms frequently elevated at or above shoulder height. No such finding had been made in a similar work environment before.
Fairway quashed Work Aon’s decision to decline coverage for Ms Holmes’ claim, and directed that Ms Holmes was entitled to receive coverage for her injury.

We act for both employers and employees:

Employer Services Employee Services