$10k payout for unjust sacking

A Mount Maunganui firm has been ordered to pay $10,857 to a former employee for unjustifiably sacking him.

Shaun O'Connor was fired by Ballance Agrinutrients Limited on December 20, 2013, after he tested positive for having cannabis in his system.

Ballance Agrinutrients on Maru Street.

However, Employment Relations Authority member Anna Fitzgibbon says: 'Mr O'Connor claims the dismissal was unjustified because Balance was not entitled to request he undergo a reasonable cause drug test under its drug and alcohol policy, the result of which was the primary reason for his dismissal.”

In a report released by the authority, Anna says operations manager Shaun Piper and service centre manager Alex Beck could have offered Shaun education, training, counselling or participation in rehabilitation when they received the test results.

'None of these measures were considered despite being available to Ballance on the first occasion a positive drug test is returned by an employee,” adds Anna. Ballance denies the firing was unjustified and says Shaun failed the drug test, which in itself constituted serious misconduct.

Shaun had been working for the company for eight years as a service centre operator at its Maru Street site in Mount Maunganui. His duties included driving heavy machinery and creating fertiliser mixes according to customer requirements.

During 2013, Shaun received two warnings - the first being a written warning on February 20, 2013, for 'smoking outside of designated smoking areas”.

On May, 20, 2013, Shaun was issued with a final written warning for dumping household rubbish at the Maru Street site, which stated his conduct was in breach of company policy and that 'any further misdemeanours will not be tolerated”.

On December 13, 2013, a call from a member of the public alleged that two Ballance employees were smoking marijuana and the number plate of Shaun's car had been identified.

He confirmed he'd been smoking but denied it was cannabis, but both Shaun and a workmate were required to undergo a urine test.

'Mr O'Connor says he was told if he refused to take the test that would be serious misconduct. Because of his final written warning, Mr O'Connor felt he had no choice but to undertake the urine test even though he did not believe there was any reason for him to be tested,” says Anna in her report.

'Mr O'Connor took the urine test which showed a non-negative result for cannabinoids and was suspended on pay until the test was verified by Canterbury Health Laboratories.”

Shaun later acknowledged smoking some cannabis at home but not at work. He was dismissed for serious misconduct and this was confirmed in a letter from Ballance dated December 20.

His workmate was also dismissed and has brought a claim which is yet to be determined by the authority.

After ruling in favour for Shaun, Anna ordered Ballance to pay him $10,857.56.

You may also like....

17 comments

Crazy decision

Posted on 13-10-2014 10:32 | By YOGI BEAR

The employer must be able to deal with employees and drugs. It creates an unsafe work environment for other staff and the public. Anything could happen when druggy types get let loose beat the wheel. Like he had warnings a plenty. The payment is completely unrealistic.


OMG

Posted on 13-10-2014 10:33 | By tonyb1965

What is wrong with the ERA is that employers are constantly being bashed. What if the guy caused a work related accident under the influence?


Joke?

Posted on 13-10-2014 11:25 | By jed

We have a guy operating heavy machinery with cannabis in his system and he couldn't immediately be given the sack. It appears the legal process is more important than any safety issue.


Jed and Tonyb1965

Posted on 13-10-2014 12:58 | By YOGI BEAR

ERA bashes the employee for sacking the "walking hazard", if you don't sack them then when there is a incident then OSH bash the employer for having an unsafe work place ... There is no win in any of this for an employer.


crazy

Posted on 13-10-2014 14:11 | By Sunny Bay of Plenty

This is disgusting, a person been working for a company for all this time, knows the rules. He should pay the company for all the lost time they have had due to his misconduct.No one should have to tolerate this .How many warnings does one person need to realize that they need to buck up.


Unbelievable!!

Posted on 13-10-2014 14:15 | By Calm Gully

I am SURE he will use the 10K to get the help he thinks he entitled too??? Common sense is a thing of the past. With a record like his, I wouldn't expect he would fight the dismissal. The system opens the gate to more irresponsible behaviour. INSTANT DISMISSAL for drug use (especially IF it is on work premises) Unbelievable!!


wot PC

Posted on 13-10-2014 18:24 | By hapukafin

this is a case of PC going wrong


Dumb and Dumber

Posted on 13-10-2014 19:03 | By Robert

Doesn't this woman realize that she has opened the door to anarchy in the workplace. Apparent lawful instructions can now be ignored at a whim and the Employer can never win. Can she not see the double standards where an employee willfully didn't follow the work procedures causing the person to be dismissed. Yet he escapes punishment. However the company is found guilty of the same but gets fined.


So Wrong

Posted on 14-10-2014 08:07 | By Hot stuff

whoever awarded this guy $10 k must be on drugs themselves. No way should the company have to pay him. it's wrong on so many levels. Should have got the police involved


vindictive ?

Posted on 14-10-2014 09:27 | By ow

This case would appear to make the ERA look really stupid. The ERA person must have a problem which needs to be addressed urgently before more of these judgements are handed down


drugs

Posted on 14-10-2014 09:33 | By dumbkof2

No he probably wont use the 10 grand to get help but .....I personally dont want to work with someone who has drugs in their system especially if they are operating heavy machinery Its not up to the company to offer help and support. He chose to use drugs so it is on his own head


confused

Posted on 14-10-2014 11:10 | By rosscoo

I thought the idea was random alcohol and drug testing. Obvious he knew he was having test and may not have used cannabis night b4 or whenever. What is world coming to when drug users say NO to being tested.


Absolutely Ridiculous

Posted on 17-10-2014 13:01 | By NZNikki

I cannot believe this decision! Talk about political correctness gone MAD! The person in the ERA obviously needs help, and FAST. Drugs & machinery operation = NO WAY!


Let's be clear...

Posted on 18-10-2014 15:17 | By theschizzle

Urine testing does not tell us where a person used marijuana, or when, or how much they used, or for how long they have been using, or whether the person is 'under the influence' at the time of the test and a danger to self or others. All a urine test does is identify whether the person is likely to be a passive (i.e. secondhand) or active marijuana user. Strangely, the urine test does not test for alcohol, or for synthetic drugs, or for other classes of drugs. So while we test for pot and the person fails because they had a smoke two or three days ago, a legally drunk person might pass and go back to driving heavy machinery with a serious hangover! Urine testing is not valid in workplaces as a safety test.


Not!

Posted on 25-10-2014 13:13 | By Baystyle

Does look like the company did everything right but still lost? Not a good result this.


OMG

Posted on 26-10-2014 09:46 | By Farmboy

Anna. Who in the world is going to employ anyone now. I bet you have never worked with people using heavy equipment. If you were the boss and knowingly let a repeat offender use heavy equipment and then there was an accident involving that person. Then were does that put you as person in charge. Think about it. Also what about the other workers. I wouldn't want to work there. ERA need a wake up call I think


Disgusting decision

Posted on 29-10-2014 13:31 | By The Tomahawk Kid

What a bloody disgrace! Balance should refuse to pay him $10,000 - I would rather go to jail than obey such a disgusting legal decision. Shame on Anna Fitzgibbon.and Shame on the ERA. Common Proof that the term "Sense is an oxymoron"


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.