‘Reasonable’ to sack killed worker’s pal

Lyttelton Port Company (LPC) was within its rights to sack a cargo handler who took a year off with a non-work injury, the Employment Court has ruled.

The court found LPC’s dismissal of employee Chris Arthurs was justified, overturning an earlier Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision that required the port to reinstate him on full pay while he remained off work.

The court described the sacking as ‘‘not unreasonable’’ given the difficult position LPC was in. It ordered the $20,000 compensation the company previously paid into the authority’s trust account be returned.

Arthurs’ troubles began when he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after two of his coworkers were killed at the port, one in 2008 and the second in 2014.

A doctor noted Arthurs had ‘‘ongoing psychological issues’’ after the deaths, one of which he witnessed.

The second workmate killed, Brad Fletcher, had been a close friend.

Arthurs returned to work after medical leave, but took time off again later in 2014 after refusing to consent to random drug and alcohol testing.

He was required to complete a health and rehabilitation programme, but presented a medical certificate stating he was unfit to resume work. His family said his stress disorder affected his ability to ‘‘comprehend and make decisions’’.

Arthurs remained off work in 2015 after suffering a non-work injury to his shoulder and elbow when he slipped on a wet deck.

Eventually, after Arthurs had been absent for over a year and was unable to indicate when he could return, he was dismissed from his job.

The ERA last year found Arthurs’ inability to return to work had been ‘‘largely been outside of his control’’, and that the dismissal had cost him both his work and his dignity.

LPC then appealed that ruling through the Employment Court.

LPC chief executive Peter Davie said following the court ruling this week, the company would not seek costs from Arthurs.

Davie said LPC had been fair and reasonable, and was concerned at the ERA’s earlier decision.

‘‘Following the ERA’s first ruling in April 2017, we were directed to reinstate an employee who was not fit for work,’’ he said.

‘‘This was particularly challenging, especially as we had no indication when the employee would be able to return to work. Despite that unfitness, LPC agreed to pay the employee through until the decision of the Employment Court.

‘‘It is a concern to us as an employer that the Employment Relations Authority originally found the dismissal to be unjustified.’’

The court judgment said that while LPC’s decision to sack Arthurs was ‘‘not unreasonable’’, it appreciated the court ruling would be a disappointment to Arthurs, and his family should not see the ruling as a criticism of them.