+64 2041283124 kiddlrs@slingshot.co.nz

Gastric Bypass Surgery a Reasonable Medical Expense

by | Nov 13, 2018 | Workers Compensation Law

In the recent case of Schmidt [2018] SAET 182 Ms Schmidt suffered compensable knee injuries. Gastric bypass surgery was considered to be a reasonable medical expense pursuant to s33 of the RTWA given the weight she needed to lose to reduce pressure on her knees. The “gastric bypass surgery was the most effective and sustainable option available out of all the surgical options based on the low percentage risk of failure and side effects”...

Biometric Fingerprint Scanner Policy Objected To By Worker

by | Nov 6, 2018 | Fair Work Law & Annotated Act

Employee Lawfully Dismissed For Failing To Use Biometric Fingerprint Scanner to Record Site Attendance In Lee v Superior Wood P/L [2018] FWC 4762 Mr Lee was given several warnings his failure to follow the site attendance policy, which involved using a biometric fingerprint scanner, would result in his dismissal. Mr Lee had privacy concerns. The Commission held the policy was not unlawful but “the manner in which the employer went about trying to obtain consent may have constituted a breach of the Privacy Act” @233 and further Mr Lee’s “objection was unreasonable when taking into consideration the purposes of the Site Attendance Policy, the improvements to payroll and health and safety, and the alternatives that would have been required to have been put in place for him” @245. Valid reason for dismissal found and dismissal upheld as...

Three Dismissal by Demotion Cases in One Week

by | Nov 1, 2018 | Annotated Fair Work Act

[2018] FWC 6695 Newcastle Harrison v FLSmidth P/L (the A was demoted “from the position of Service Supervisor to that of Mechanical Service Technician – Experienced (Service Technician). He remains employed by FLS in the position of Service Technician” @ – “The proper characterisation of events is one in which FLS made a number of allegations against Mr Harrison and asked him to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated, Mr Harrison responded by floating a number of ideas (including demotion) in an effort to remain in employment with FLS, and FLS then decided to demote Mr Harrison and issue him with a written warning. It is therefore apparent that the action of FLS was the principal contributing factor which led to Mr Harrison’s demotion. The demotion was at FLS’s initiative, not Mr Harrison’s … There is no doubt that the demotion involved a significant reduction in Mr Harrison’s remuneration and duties. Accordingly, Mr Harrison’s demotion in his employment with FLS constitutes a dismissal within the meaning of s 386” @70-71) [2018] FWC 6666 SA Whitfield v Master Tree Ninja (the unilateral withdrawal of leading hand responsibilities from A was a repudiation of his contract of employment – A had agreed by contract to work as a ground crew climber – “When Mr Whitfield was promoted to leading hand in March 2018 it was an offer made verbally and an offer accepted verbally” @82 – this was a lawful variation of contract – “unilaterally removing a contractual right to be employed as a leading hand was the removal of a fundamental right under his contract...