Employee discriminated against in workplace for hand tremor…

An employee working as a lift technician has been dismissed after his employer discovered he had a hereditary hand tremor.

The Human Rights Tribunal upheld the employee’s claims that his employer had discriminated against him.

The Tribunal found that the hand tremor did not affect the employee’s work performance but was suspected or assumed to exist and to be a safety issue by the employer.

The Tribunal noted that the employee had worked for 5 years as a technician and had never been affected by the hand tremor at work. The tremor was slight and no medical examination had been ordered by the employer to deduce whether the condition affected his work or safety.

The employee was awarded $3,700 for lost wages and $25,000 compensation for loss of dignity and injury to feelings plus $700 for travel expenses.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to train its senior management staff on their obligations under the Human Rights Act.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Employee’s iPad usage at work threatens employer’s business…

An employee working in a takeaway shop has been dismissed after getting into a disagreement with her employer over having her iPad out at work. The employer was concerned that the employee might use the device to take photos of the business’ recipes.

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissed as she was fired on the spot at the beginning of one of her shifts.

The ERA found that the employee had contributed to the grievance by badgering the employer about her employment status in order to find out whether she was being dismissed. The employee had further aggravated the employer by arriving at work not in uniform.

The employer was ordered to pay the employee $3,000 for lost wages and $1,000 compensation plus $750 towards her costs.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Employee justifiably dismissed under 90 day trial clause after volunteering at the workplace…

An employee has been dismissed under a 90 day trial period clause for poor performance. The employee had previously volunteered at the workplace for a day prior to signing her employment agreement. The employer referred to this arrangement as a ‘pre-employment test’.

The Employment Relations Authority rejected the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal.

The ERA held that the 90 day trial clause was effective despite the employee’s previous work experience for the employer.

The ERA noted that there had been no discussion of payment for the number of hours she worked during the pre-employment test, and at no stage had the employee queried the non-payment, presented a time-sheet for those hours, or requested payment for that day.

The ERA found that the employee had not received an offer of employment prior to the test, and found that the employee’s employment agreement clearly stated the commencement date of employment as starting a couple of days after the test had taken place.

The ERA thus found that the employee was justifiably dismissed in accordance with the trial period clause in her employment agreement.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington