Authority examines communication in workplace injury return case
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case where a worker claimed unfair dismissal following his attempt to return to work after an injury.
The worker stated that despite agreeing to a return-to-work plan in a meeting with his employer and an occupational therapist, he was dismissed by text message without proper process.
The case examined proper procedures for dismissal and return-to-work arrangements after injury-related absences.
The worker began working at an automotive company in MÄngere, Auckland, in July 2023. After a one-day trial paid in cash, he secured permanent employment at $22.50 per hour, performing duties such as workshop maintenance, vehicle servicing, repairs, inspections, and vehicle deliveries.
In September 2023, he sustained a back injury at home, which he attributed to his work duties. After several weeks off, he began receiving Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) compensation and provided medical certificates to his employer throughout his absence.
When he attempted to return in October 2023, he was assigned to cut tyres, which conflicted with his doctor's advice against repetitive movements. The director then contacted ACC to indicate no alternative duties were available.
A meeting took place on 18 December 2023 with the worker, director, and an ACC occupational therapist, where they agreed on a 15 January 2024 return date.
On the agreed date, the worker messaged: "Just making sure we are on the same page for me to return to work today? if so I'm ready to go. didn't want to show up without hearing from you and not to have any work for me and waste your time."
After receiving no response and finding his name wasn't on the work schedule, he sent multiple messages over the following week. The employer's lack of response continued until 22 January 2024.
The director's eventual response stated: "Hey. I was not really here last week. Sorry I don't have your fit for work certificate or any communication from yourself or [name] rehab from last year. I was under the impression you were getting a fitness test after the meeting... I don't have a job here for light duty's as explained in the meeting. I'm sorry probably best to come grab your tool box when u can also. I don't have a job anymore for you."
The worker raised a personal grievance through his representatives on 25 January 2024, as provided for under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). His tools and toolbox were later left outside the workshop for collection.
The ERA found that under the Act, the worker "was entitled to have his employer put its concerns to him and to be provided a fair opportunity to respond and have any response fairly considered before the decision to dismiss him was made."
The ERA stated: "[The employer] failed to be responsive and communicative with [the worker] upon his return to work, in accordance with its good faith obligations."
The Authority further emphasised: "The unjustifiability of [the worker's] dismissal was well-established in [the employer's] failure to follow statutory requirements. These obligations were not [the worker's], and it is not appropriate to make deduction from the monetary remedies for reasons of contribution."
The employer was ordered to pay $15,000 as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act, $11,700 in lost wages, $2,250 in costs, and $71.55 for the ERA application fee, all within 14 days of the determination.
