NZ Post's uniform policy under question

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4017365 ... r-question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A dispute over a Wellington postie's insistence on wearing a blue T-shirt under his uniform has brought NZ Post's uniform policy under question.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has criticised New Zealand Post for giving postie Karl Oakes an unjustified written warning after a tiff over a blue sweatshirt and T-shirt he wore while on his rounds.

Mr Oakes succeeded in getting a black mark removed from his work record but his behaviour was seen as confrontational by the ERA.

He first had a run-in at work because he wanted to wear a blue hoodie instead of the postie uniform.

He removed the hoodie when he was asked to, but would not remove a blue T-shirt which he wanted to wear under his uniform for "comfort".

NZ Post's Wellington business delivery leader Suzanne Cameron claimed the T-shirt was still visible and not properly tucked in, though Mr Oakes denied this.

He said it was unreasonable for him to be asked to remove "cotton underwear" which he wanted to wear for comfort.

At a disciplinary hearing in October, Mr Oakes said the issue had not been raised with him prior to the company's meeting. He said this was the first time there had been any discussion on how to wear the uniform.

The incident has led to the Postal Workers Union challenging NZ Post's uniform policy. The union said there were no medical exceptions to the requirement to wear the uniform and that there should have been discussion with the union.

The ERA determined that the warning given to Mr Oakes was unjustified as he had not been put on proper notice and the details of the allegations had not been properly raised with him.

It found there was an element of uncertainty and conflict on the uniform policy between the provision of the collective agreement and the postie training manual and there were no clear guidelines on how to wear the uniform correctly.

Mr Oakes' behaviour contributed to the situation because he acted in a "confrontational" manner and was prepared to take his branch leader on over the issue, the ERA said.

Mr Oakes' written warning was unjustified but no remedies were ordered and the union's claims for breach of the procedure was dismissed.