Meatworks must pay

A Timaru meat processing plant has been ordered to contribute more than $7000 to the legal costs of an employee who had earlier won a case involving workplace abuse.

Employment Relations Authority (ERA) member David Appleton ruled that Alliance Smithfield had 14 days from April 13 to pay $7000 towards employee Coral Shanks’ legal costs, plus an extra $195.73 for disbursements.

Shanks was, however, told to immediately transfer the amount to the New Zealand Meat Workers’ Union who instructed her counsel, Karina Coulston, on her behalf.

Shanks was awarded $10,000 by the ERA in February after Appleton decided she had been disadvantaged in her work when forced to stay behind after a shift that saw her called a ‘‘f.....g stupid b...h’’ by plant supervisor Jordan Wihone.

‘‘Whilst the respondent [Alliance] did deal with her complaint, and disciplined the aggressor, it did not take steps to ensure that she felt safe and protected,’’ Appleton said.

A three-day hearing in November - where Shanks claimed she was sworn at after pulling an emergency cord that stopped machinery on January 13, 2017 - preceded Appleton’s decisions.

After the ERA ruling in February, Shanks and Alliance were directed to ‘‘seek to agree’’ how legal costs would be handled.

‘‘Evidently no agreement was able to be reached,’’ he said in the ruling.

Appleton’s first consideration when deciding if Shanks was entitled to having her costs covered was whether or not she had won her case.

Shanks only successfully defended seven of the 22 claims of unjustified action she lodged against Alliance.

None of the claims Shanks proved were ‘‘trivial or unsubstantial’’ however, Appleton said.

‘‘I am satisfied that Ms Shanks was sufficiently successful.’’

Appleton also considered the fact Shanks’ costs were paid by her union but acknowledged she could not have afforded Coulston’s services.

‘‘As a union member she has a right to support from the union when she needs it in relation to her employment,’’ he said.

‘‘Without the union’s backing Ms Shanks would have found it much harder to have pursued her grievances against the respondent.’’

Appleton then looked at the significance of two offers to settle Shanks received from Alliance on November 24, 2017: either $12,000 compensation or $8000 compensation and $4000 towards costs.

Both offers would have disadvantaged the union.

Coulston said her client was only given four hours and 41 minutes to respond but Alliance’s counsel, Lucia Vincent, said the offers came on the back of multiple discussions between both sides to determine a settlement.

‘‘Giving just under five hours for acceptance was not unreasonable,’’ Appleton said.

He decided it was also not unreasonable that Shanks rejected the offers, because accepting one meant she would have had to keep quiet about the event and not been able to be vindicated.

‘‘Given the close knit community of co-workers in which she worked, I believe that would have caused her some difficulty.’’

Appleton concluded Shanks rejecting the offers could not be used to ‘‘justify reversing the burden of costs’’.

Appleton reduced the amount awarded because many of Shanks’ claims were disproved. He also rejected a request for $14,800 in costs.