Lyttelton Port worker sacked for leaving work early awarded $45,000

Tuesday, 20 August 2019

A Lyttelton Port worker unfairly dismissed for leaving his shifts early has been awarded $45,000 and given his job back by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

David Craig worked for Lyttelton Port Company from 2008 till 2018 in several roles.

He was sacked from his role as logistics officer in May last year following an investigation into him leaving his night shift early six times in 10 days.

Craig worked the night shift with one other colleague. The two were expected to self-manage rosters and breaks, the ERA decision said.

**READ MORE:

* Employment court rules Lyttelton Port's dismissal of hurt worker was justified

* Lyttelton Port Company boss Peter Davie to retire** 

* Cruise ships returning to Lyttelton Harbour in 2020

The terms included answering emails, planning for upcoming vessels, manning the radio and ship control function and relieving each other for meal and other breaks.

Early last year Craig and his family were under considerable pressure due to ill health of a family member. As a result Craig would suffer from headaches.

On April 5, 2018 the port company discovered Craig had left a shift early. That same day Craig had informed the logistics manager he had left his shift early because of a headache.

The next day Lyttelton Port's container terminal manager Doug Parker wrote to Craig asking him to complete his full rostered shifts.

The company undertook an investigation into whether he had left site early on multiple occasions over the prior two weeks.

Craig continued to work for the port until he was dismissed on May 7.

Before he was sacked Craig attended two meetings with his bosses. The first on April 11 was held to let Craig explain why he had left early on six occasions.

The company was concerned Craig was putting the health and safety of his colleague at risk on the nights he left early. However, Craig would ask his colleagues permission before leaving early, the authority later heard.

Notes from the meeting detailed how Craig and his colleague thought if there 'wasn't a ship on it was OK to leave early'.

He had not told his manager he had been dealing with headaches for some time, and his personal circumstances along with working the night shift had taken a toll on his relationships, the ERA heard.

At the meeting Craig said he would take the company's comments on board and that he valued working for Lyttelton Ports.

'At the end of the day I haven't adhered to the contract. I apologise. It won't happen again,' Craig said.

A second meeting was held on April 30, where Parker stressed he had not made a final decision on whether or not to sack Craig.

At the meeting Craig's union representative said he had a clean employment record and had also shown remorse.

Craig's family circumstance had been impacting his decision to leave early for about three months.

But Parker dismissed Craig in a letter claiming the company had lost trust and confidence in him.

The authority found after Parker had decided he lost trust and confidence in April, Craig was not suspended but allowed to continue working until May 7. The authority said this was 'not compatible' in a loss of trust.

The authority also found there was a lack of agreement between the port and the union about self management.

'The letters of expectation do not say that there should never be only one officer on shift. Therefore, merely leaving early would not necessarily risk safety or operational effectiveness.'

The authority said Craig accepted he'd been wrong but only in hindsight, not when he was actually leaving early, because he thought that was allowed.

Craig's partner also left early on two occasions because he also thought they could leave when there was no ship on. His colleague was given a written warning.

The authority found there was no disparity of treatment between the two workers because Craig had left early more times.

It also found Parker had concerns about whether Craig could manage his personal circumstances and work, however, this concern was not conveyed to him. As a result Craig had not opportunity to respond to this concern.

In an email sent on May 2, Parker accused Craig of leaving work early, but he actually did not go home early that night.

The authority found this error was not minor and contributed to Craig being treated unfairly. It concluded Lyttelton Port did not act in the way a fair and reasonable employer could have.

Lyttelton Port Company was ordered to pay Craig $45,093 in lost wages, and compensation for hurt and humiliation. His position has also been reinstated.