Compo for cannabis-supplying worker puts noses out of joint

A story on the front page of yesterday's Herald about Christchurch man Corey Wilkinson being awarded more than $12,000 by the Employment Relations Authority after he admitted supplying cannabis to a colleague has attracted mixed feedback.

The authority found that Mr Wilkinson's employers, Saxons Appliances in Christchurch, had fired the appliance technician, now aged 31, unfairly after he admitted supplying a colleague with two tinnies.

A Saxons Appliances spokesman said the company was devastated and felt "shafted" by the decision and would be complaining to Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson.

One reader wrote: "Another case where the poor employer has not conducted a proper investigation to establish all the facts, then held a kangaroo court and refused to allow the allegations to be passed on to the worker's representative ... Then when they get a decision made against them they cry foul. Sack the lawyer that they got the bad advice from. Refuse to pay the invoice. Tell the lawyer to foot the bill. Don't cry off to Kate."

Trish Coyle, a New Zealander who has been living overseas for 10 years, was appalled that Mr Wilkinson had been awarded compensation.

"Here in the State of Arizona, as with many other states in the US, all those involved would have been fired on the spot. In fact, prior to their employment they may even have been drug tested," she said.

"New Zealand has a way to go yet and it is not easy because Kiwis want to maintain a little naivety whilst growing up. The whole methamphetamine situation is being nurtured by political correctness. I am so disappointed in this outcome. The law in NZ is an ass."

Wal Britton, the managing director of Auckland company AEL Legal, a company that writes employment agreements, terms of trade and conducts litigation, said the employer was always on the back foot.

"Even if an employer wins, the employer's going to get screwed because when an employee takes an employer to the Employment Relations Authority the employer is virtually obliged to employ a lawyer to protect their position - and that's going to cost between $5000 and $20,000. It's a kangaroo court. It's a joke and the Government needs to take stock of the situation and sort it out."

Another man said: "I am an employee but I still feel that in many of these types of cases the balance is highly biased toward the employee. We do need laws that protect workers.

"However, why do these cases always start from the view that the employer is the bad guy and have they done every step to the letter of the law and there seems to be no accountability on the other side?"