Craig (Andrew) Campbell v Qube Ports NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 174

This is an interim Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision on interim reinstatement. The Authority did not finally decide whether the dismissal was justified. It decided whether the employee should be reinstated now, pending the substantive hearing of the personal grievance. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Campbell worked for Qube Ports NZ Limited as a stevedore from March 2023. The work involved a mix of tasks at the Port of Tauranga: cranes, excavators and forklifts, cleaning out bulk vessels, rigging/securing cargo, and other hands-on stevedoring work. His employment was covered by a Maritime Union collective agreement.

Mr Campbell had a history of childhood asthma (disclosed at the pre-employment medical). On 6 January 2024, while working in a ship's cargo hold during palm kernel (PK) operations, he suffered an acute respiratory/facial irritation event consistent with an allergic/irritant response. A medical certificate followed advising him not to do bulk work where PK was present. From January 2024 until early April 2025, Qube exempted him from bulk work and he performed alternative duties (including van driving and other general work) without reported asthma incidents.

In April 2025 Qube met with Mr Campbell to discuss the ongoing bulk exemption. Soon after, Mr Campbell suffered a work-related finger injury (April 2025) and was off work on sick leave/ACC. A further non-work foot injury occurred in May 2025. In December 2025 he provided a medical certificate indicating he could return to work, but Qube did not permit a return because it still had concerns about asthma, the bulk exemption, and what duties could be performed safely.

Mr Campbell agreed to an occupational medical assessment by Dr Roderick Douglas. Qube received the report on 30 January 2026. After considering the report, Qube communicated a preliminary view that termination for medical incapacity was appropriate, received a response, and then dismissed Mr Campbell on 18 February 2026. Mr Campbell raised a personal grievance on 19 February 2026 and applied for interim reinstatement on 20 February 2026.

What the Authority had to decide

Interim reinstatement is decided on untested affidavit evidence. The Authority applied the standard interim relief framework:

• Serious question to be tried: not frivolous; the evidence must show an arguable case (including arguable unjustified dismissal and arguable permanent reinstatement).
• Balance of convenience: the practical impact of granting vs refusing interim reinstatement while the case proceeds.
• Overall justice: a final check that the interim result is fair in the circumstances.

Serious question to be tried: medical risk and the meaning of the medical report

A key dispute was how to read Dr Douglas's report. Qube treated it as meaning Mr Campbell could not safely work in the Port environment because dust exposure was unavoidable. Mr Campbell's position was narrower: he was fit for most duties but should avoid particularly dusty environments, especially the hopper area and ship holds when airborne organic dust is present.

The Authority recorded that the report did not support an early conclusion that Mr Campbell could not work at the Port at all. It noted the report described him as fit for the majority of his usual roles and suggested further investigation would be appropriate if symptoms remained troublesome. The Authority also noted Mr Campbell had not had an opportunity to trial alternative PPE/respiratory protection after the 2024 incident.

The Authority also considered the parties' competing evidence about where dust risk existed. Qube said dust was essentially everywhere at the Port. Mr Campbell said the material dusty environments were bulk work in ship holds and beneath the hopper, and his experience during the exemption period supported that narrower assessment. On the interim record, the Authority found the Port environment did not present an unreasonable risk to his health and safety.

Serious question to be tried: alternatives and a fair enquiry in no-fault dismissal

Medical incapacity dismissal is usually treated as a no-fault context. If an employer decides to "fairly cry halt", it must still carry out a fair enquiry: balancing fairness to the employee with practical business requirements, and seriously considering reasonable alternatives.

Qube said it considered alternatives (crane/digger work, van driving, sweeper truck work, log work and seasonal kiwifruit), but the Authority was critical of the scope of that assessment. It noted Qube did not appear to consider whether Mr Campbell could undertake bulk work where PK was not present, or whether bulk work could be modified so he avoided the high-dust tasks (ship hold and hopper) identified in the medical report. The Authority also noted the evidence did not clearly explain why alternative duties that had been available and successfully performed during the exemption period were said to be no longer available or suitable.

On that basis, the Authority found there was an arguable case that Qube did not adequately consider alternative duties or modified duties. Combined with the medical report interpretation issue, the Authority held there was a serious question to be tried on unjustified dismissal.

Serious question to be tried: permanent reinstatement

The Authority then assessed whether there was a serious question to be tried about permanent reinstatement. Under the Employment Relations Act, where an employee succeeds and seeks reinstatement, reinstatement must be ordered where practicable and reasonable.

Qube accepted there were no major social integration barriers, but said the health and safety risk and the lack of sufficient non-bulk work meant reinstatement was not practicable or reasonable. The Authority rejected the health and safety premise on the interim record. It also noted Mr Campbell worked under an annualised hours system and only needed three 12-hour shifts per week to meet those hours. He met his annualised hours in 2024 while doing alternative duties.

The Authority also noted that information Qube provided about casual work patterns in December 2025 showed a mix of work (including a large proportion of general hand work), and Mr Campbell was willing to trial a return to non-bulk work to see whether he could meet annualised hours. Qube did not facilitate that option.

Mr Campbell also had a foot injury and was certified unfit until 24 March 2026. A return-to-work plan had been formulated, but the dismissal interrupted implementation. Taking those factors together, the Authority held there was a serious question to be tried on permanent reinstatement and that, on the interim record, reinstatement was practicable and reasonable.

Balance of convenience

Qube submitted financial hardship was not unusual in dismissal cases and should not carry significant weight. Mr Campbell said he had ongoing mortgage and living expenses, was unsure whether ACC payments would continue, and faced an ongoing deficit without wages.

Qube also argued reinstatement would disrupt operations because if a gang was moved mid-shift to bulk work Mr Campbell could not continue. Mr Campbell responded with an example where he was reassigned to van duties for the rest of the shift. The Authority noted Qube did not provide additional evidence demonstrating the claimed operational disruption.

The Authority also referred to the employer obligation to make necessary adjustments to reasonably accommodate an employee, and to the collective agreement provisions about training and upskilling as relevant to the alternatives assessment. Considering the relative strength of the case and the interim impacts, the Authority held the balance of convenience favoured Mr Campbell.

Overall justice

The Authority considered this was a no-fault dismissal and Mr Campbell could not control his medical condition. It considered it difficult to see injustice in reinstatement where there appeared to be sufficient work available and where the medical evidence supported fitness for most duties with targeted dust avoidance.

It also noted that Qube did not put in place a return-to-work plan before dismissal, which would have given the parties a further opportunity to work constructively on accommodation and safe work design. Overall justice favoured interim reinstatement.

Orders

Practical takeaways

• Medical incapacity dismissal still needs a fair enquiry: even in a no-fault context, employers must carefully assess medical evidence and reasonable alternatives.
• Be specific about risk: broad statements like "the whole site is dusty" may be tested against evidence of actual exposures and work history.
• Modified duties can matter: if a medical report identifies specific high-risk tasks, it may be necessary to explore task-based restrictions and trial returns, not just all-or-nothing termination.
• Interim reinstatement is possible: where there is a credible case on unjustified dismissal and reinstatement, interim reinstatement can be ordered to preserve the employment relationship while the merits are determined.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.