this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
50 points (96.3% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1658 readers
11 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] incogtino@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quoted from the article:

However, despite Hassan’s argument that urine tests did not test impairment or whether a worker was under the influence of cannabis, Blick said it was reasonable for Atlas to rely on the testing as it did.

“It is important not to lose sight about why these tests are undertaken – for safety reasons.”

Blick said a fair and reasonable employer could have concluded Hadfield’s non-negative test result met the definition of “attending work under the influence” of drugs and his dismissal was not substantively unjustified.

Procedurally, however, Atlas had failed in several areas, she said.

[–] Ilovethebomb 6 points 1 year ago

So, the reason he wash dismissed was valid, but the company didn't follow proper procedure. That's often how these cases end up.