The potential danger of an epileptic fit was the focus of an Employment Relations Authority case that went in favour of the worker.

Packaging company Amcor Flexibles has been ordered to pay $20,000 to a former employee of 20 years who was dismissed after potential problems arose from his epilepsy.

Senior printer Kelly Gillan had a seizure at the Carmen Rd, Christchurch, factory in June 2015 and was restricted to day shifts on medical advice.

In October 2015, he felt unwell again, prompting further medical reports, and Amcor subsequently sent him a letter advising him that if he was unable to return to full duties his employment might be terminated.

He was told in March 2016 that his employment was terminated on the grounds of medical incapacity and he was paid weeks two weeks notice in lieu.

READ MORE: Employment Relations Authority dismisses Et Tu union's claims

Gillan claimed unjustified dismissal and sought $43,300 in lost wages and interest.

The Employment Relations Authority's (ERA) Helen Doyle accepted evidence about the possibility of accidents.

After the first incident a doctor assessed Gillan's risk of accident as low, although she said potential consequences could be catastrophic.

A management plan was set up and Gillan was never to be left alone working around the machines or climb stairs.

The second incident was identified by a neurosurgeon as a partial seizure.

Amcor managers became concerned about Gillan's straightforwardness about his condition and he was stood down briefly on full pay before returning to light duties.

A further report from another neurosurgeon said the second incident may have been the result of changing medication, but Gillan had had occasional partial seizures.

The neurosurgeon said Gillan had sufficient warning of seizures to remove himself from danger.

Another neurosurgeon said he was happy for Gillan to return to his full duties and noted he was due for surgery to correct the condition, which happened in October 2016.

However, Amcor sent him a termination letter in March 2016 on the grounds of health and safety obligations.

The ERA concluded Amcor should have made further inquiries and there had been insufficient discussion with Gillan.

The ERA was also concerned one of the doctors may have been influenced in her reports by Amcor managers, and there were concerns about failure to allow Gillan to respond to the accusations of his lack of straightforwardness.

"I find in conclusion that there was procedural unfairness that impacted on and is unable to be separated from the substantive justification for the dismissal of Mr Gillan," Doyle said.

"A fair and reasonable employer could not have reached the decision to dismiss on March 10, 2016, in all the circumstances."

The ERA also heard about the significant effect on Gillan and his family's finances, relationships and mental distress.

Gillan subsequently found another printing job, although at a lower pay rate.