Andrew is an employment lawyer and partner in the Wellington firm Luke, Cunningham & Clere.

3 Responses

  1. Danny Jacobson
    Danny Jacobson at | | Reply

    Andrew

    In analysing an Authority decision we are trying to analyse the law’s classic unruly horse.
    Unfortunately, the decision you refer to is far from unique in its likely effect of causing employers (and employment lawyers) to scratch their heads in wonder.

    Regards

  2. John Callaghan
    John Callaghan at | | Reply

    This is just a continuation of a society where people have no personal responability. Always someone else to blame or at fault. This country needs to stand up and be accountable!

  3. Tanya Roberson
    Tanya Roberson at | | Reply

    When I read this I wondered what was left out.

    It says the supervisor “exposed his misleading behaviour and issued him with a written warning about his conduct.”

    This wording makes it sound like there was serious misconduct on the part of the employee and one imagines the employee off skiing or surfing and then lying about it”— but what if the employee was absent because he/she was seeing their psychiatrist and “mislead” the employer to keep it personal and private— then the supervisor wrote them up for misconduct over something fairly trivial. Then it becomes a much different story.

    Maybe the supervisor is bullying employee and the supervisor’s bullying tactic is to monitor the employee every second of the day and write up any incident as “misconduct” no matter how minor, even if it is missing work for a few hours to see a psychiatrist and saying they are working at home.

    Anyway, my bet is there is way more to that story, I’m siding with the employee.

Leave a Reply