News
The west coast chainsaw massacre
There is nothing that exudes masculinity quite like heavy machinery.
If the folk lore of the 1980s is anything to go by, tough guys drive trucks. Or bulldozers. And they either carry bren guns ... or chainsaws.
Going by the clichés therefore, one would expect that it might be unlikely that a man whose job it was to sell chainsaws would be the sort of person who would order a soy latte ... to go with his piece of spinach and feta quiche.
Put another way, a job selling heavy machinery - particularly on the West Coast of the South Island - might be something that one would expect would be the preserve of the clichéd tough guy.
If the recent case of O'Brien v Renton Chainsaws & Mowers Ltd (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Christchurch, CEA 305/02) is anything to go by, however, it seems that more sensitive types can work in the industry - although (as the case illustrates) perhaps only with some difficulty.
Anthony O'Brien was an employee at Renton Chainsaws & Mowers - a company which sold chainsaws and heavy equipment in stores in Hokitika and Greymouth. It appears that O'Brien's job required him to complete a number of different tasks - which variously included dealing with customers, processing sales and dealing with equipment.
O'Brien worked alongside another employee - who is identified in the Authority's decision simply as Mr X.
Evidently, there was some personality issues between the two men.
First, O'Brien complained that Mr X physically harassed him - by pushing him out of the way in front of customers. He made a formal complaint to his employer about what he saw to be the problem.
Secondly, O'Brien was both concerned and embarrassed by Mr X's apparent fondness of pornography. O'Brien complained to his employer that Mr X used the store's computer for downloading offensive material - and, further, that he was in a habit of leaving the computer in such a state so that when O'Brien went to use it, pornography would appear. O'Brien said that on one occasion, he had taken a customer to the computer - only to find (to his embarrassment) that a pornographic image immediately appeared.
It appears that - at least initially - the employer was reluctant to give credence to O'Brien's complaints. The Authority found that the employer did not take them as seriously as it should - and instead took the attitude that O'Brien was simply not tough enough for the circumstances of the job. There was a conversation with Mr X, the outcome of which was a direction to him to "take it easy" on O'Brien.
O'Brien was - perhaps understandably - dissatisfied with this manner of dealing with his complaints.
He required that his employer attend a mediation to address his problems. Mistakenly, however, the employer thought that O'Brien's intention was to convene a mediation between himself and Mr X - perhaps to sort out their differences.
Ultimately, O'Brien was sufficiently dissatisfied with his employment situation that he resigned from his employment. He brought a claim of unjustified constructive dismissal against his employer.
The Employment Relations Authority found in favour of O'Brien. It held that the employer had not acted reasonably in reacting to his complaints in the way that it did. Further, it found that circumstances of the case were such that O'Brien was justified in resigning from his employment. The Authority concluded, therefore, that he had been constructively dismissed.
Interestingly, O'Brien's claim for loss of wages was comparatively minor - and an award in the vicinity of $700 was made to him.
On the other hand, however, a significant award was made to compensate O'Brien for his distress and humiliation which resulted from his workplace circumstances. O'Brien and his wife gave evidence about the significant emotional toll that he had suffered as a consequence of his circumstances. The Authority ordered the employer to pay $10,000 to compensate him for this distress.
There may be a couple of messages that employers can take from this case.
First, the case is probably an illustration of the consequences that can follow where an employer does not give sufficient credence to an employee's complaints of inappropriate or unreasonable behaviour at work.
Secondly, the case probably also illustrates that - no matter the industry - it is probably not sufficient to answer workplace concerns by adopting an attitude that employees have to be emotionally "tough". The Employment Relations Authority will, if required to consider a situation, apply a simple objective analysis - and consequences similar to those in this case may follow.
