A liar and a bludger

Some people really take diabolical liberties.

This liar and bludgers really takes the cake.

An “injured” worker who took more than a year off work was snapped by a private investigator in a fit condition, and has been ordered to pay her employer $1500.

Barbara Twentyman, who worked as a night fill worker in the clothing department at The Warehouse in Taupo, lost her case at the Employment Relations Authority against The Warehouse?for its?alleged failure to provide a safe and healthy work environment.

Twentyman injured her left shoulder while lifting products in February 2012. That same month she claimed that she sustained ongoing issues which felt like a “heart attack” as a result of concrete dust at work.

The former employee did not seek medical attention for her injury to her shoulder until a month later, with her “heart attack” symptoms being brought to her doctor’s attention two months afterwards.

The company used? photographic evidence from a private investigator it?hired with the approval of ACC to document Twentyman performing tasks which should not have been possible with her injury, to prove Twentyman was fit for work. ? ?

However, Twentyman maintained the photographs provided to the ERA from the investigator were not her even though it clearly was, the decision stated.

She also failed to attend weekly meetings set up by The Warehouse?and Care Advantage to assess in what capacity she could return to work. ?Evidence from Twentyman’s own doctors which dispute her claims helped bring? closure to an issue that had been ongoing since 2012.

The ERA sided with the company, stating Twentyman had provided “misleading information” to her doctors and employers and her obstruction was “deliberate conduct”, which the ERA deemed “serious and sustained over a long period of time”.

Karina McLuskie, an employment lawyer at Tompkins Wake, ?called the ruling “uncommon”.

“I think this is a very interesting case in that the employee has received a penalty. You don’t see that coming out of the authority everyday or the employment court for that matter.”

The penalty is nowhere near enough, in fact I think she should be charged with fraud and she was clearly attempting to defraud The Warehouse with a spurious employment claim.

The Warehouse certainly will have spent plenty more than they have received in compensation in dealing with this lying, bludging ratbag.

 

– Fairfax

41%
×