'This was a simple request by an employee for a more appropriate chair because they had a sore back,' ERA says
An apprentice electrician's request for a more comfortable chair at work has escalated into a legal battle resulting in a significant payout after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found his employer's actions unjust.
The Electrical Trading Company Limited (Etco) has been ordered to pay over $30,000 in compensation to the apprentice, who endured weeks of sleepless nights and hair loss issues amid the dispute.
The case began in September 2019 when the apprentice, employed by Etco, requested and failed to get a more ergonomic chair due to back pain caused by prolonged sitting.
Apprentice suffers from scoliosis
The apprentice also cited in his request that he was recently diagnosed with scoliosis, which was another factor in the pain he was experiencing.
He later went to see his doctor about his sore back without telling his coordinator, who asked him to get a medical certificate when they found out about the situation.
The employer then also requested that he accomplish an accident form, adding that an ACC process would commence using the document.
But the apprentice later said he would no longer pursue the ACC claim, adding that he had not been back to his doctor to get a medical certificate.
His coordinator, however, noted that the medical certificate was needed to satisfy the company that the apprentice was fit to work.
Employer wants doctor’s note
Etco also later told him that his doctor needed to complete an Apprentice Electrician Job Task Sheet (JTS), so the company was aware of any potential limitations or workplace issues related to his scoliosis diagnosis.
But the apprentice said his contract did not require him to provide a JTS, and when he failed to provide the documents needed, he was suspended.
He only had his doctor complete the JTS by late December after he felt "he had no choice" on the matter, with the sheet recorded that he was fit to work. He sought back pay for his suspension after he completed the JTS but was told that he wasn't entitled to it and he would only be paid normal wages.
By March, the apprentice resigned from Etco citing "so many disruptions" to his apprenticeships.
He then raised to the ERA grievances of unjustified action causing disadvantage to employment, as well as grievance for unjustifiable dismissal arising out of his resignation.
ERA sides with apprentice
The ERA, in its decision dated January 18, agreed that there was no basis to require the apprentice either a medical certificate or the JTS.
"The suspension imposed by Etco when he did not do either of these things was not reasonable nor was it justified," the ERA said in its ruling.
It added that Etco did not have the right to demand a medical assessment over fitness for work as there is no basis for requiring that assessment.
"This was a simple request by an employee for a more appropriate chair because they had a sore back from sitting in the current one," the ERA stated.
Etco should have sought medical advice regarding the suitability of a more ergonomic chair rather than suspending the employee, according to the authority.
"The better approach would have been for Etco to ask the employee to get a medical practitioner to certify that a more comfortable (ergonomic) chair would relieve or prevent the employee's back pain and at the same time advise if any other steps should be undertaken by it to prevent ongoing or further back pain for the employee at work," it said.
Etco has been ordered to pay the apprentice $4,410 for his unjust suspension and three months’ worth of pay. Another $25,000 has been ordered after the apprentice suffered stress, anxiety, sleeplessness, as well as hair loss amid the dispute.
