Employee receives $14,000 in compensation after employer fails to respond appropriately to claims of bullying…

An employee working as a social worker has resigned after experiencing what she considered to be sustained and relentless bullying by her manager. The employee complained about the bullying to her employer who responded by reappointing the employee to a new position, facilitating meetings, and by holding a team building day. The employer also required the manager to attend a bullying in the workplace workshop in an attempt to resolve the situation.

The Employment Relations Authority held that the employer had failed to act as a fair and reasonable employer could in the circumstances by failing to respond appropriately to the employee’s complaints.

The ERA held that the employer should have undertaken an investigation into the matter, and should have regarded the employee’s concerns as a formal complaint.

The ERA noted that employers have a responsibility to eliminate or minimise workplace stress and offers of counselling and other assistance, although reasonable, did not deal with the cause of the employee’s stress and were insufficient to resolve the problem.

The ERA ordered the employer to pay the employee $14,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Employer penalised $8000 plus lost wages for injury dismissal…

In a recent Employment Relations Authority decision, an Employee was granted $8,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation in their person grievance claim after being unjustifiably dismissed by her employer. The employee had missed 18 work days as a result of a work related injury.

The ERA will look to see if the employer’s actions were fair and reasonable under the circumstances at the time the employee was dismissed.

Any adverse decisions in relation to the employment of staff made by employers must be in good faith. This includes providing the employee with as much information as possible and giving the employee an opportunity to comment before the final decision is made.

In this case, the employer dismissed the employee, in her absence, due to her incapacity to complete the normal duties of her job and without informing her of the concerns they held in regards to her ability to continue working. In addition she was not given any opportunity to respond.

A fair and reasonable employer must carry out a thorough investigation into the circumstances regarding the employee’s absence. This might include assessing;

1.         their current and future workload,

2.         the impact the absence of the employee has on other employees,

3.         whether the existing employees’ workloads can be adjusted to cover the absentee,

4.         the continuing costs incurred by the employee’s absence,

5.         an employer should obtain medical evidence, a prognosis and what adjustments could be made to support the return to work,

6.         and lastly, when the employee will be fit and able to return to normal work duties.

Holding a job open for an employee can be a financially draining exercise for an employer but the repercussions when not acting fairly and reasonably and with good faith can be a lot worse. Keeping communication lines open between employer and employee in these circumstances is vital.  As well as the compensation the employee also received lost wages and the employer’s contributions to her KiwiSaver for the time it took for her to find new employment.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Suspension of Employee costs $4000…

An employee working as a site supervisor has been suspended and dismissed after placing a portaloo on the worksite. The employee was asked repeatedly by his manager to remove it but refused to do so.

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified disadvantage in relation to the suspension but held that the employee had been justifiably dismissed.

The ERA held that the suspension of the employee was unlawful as the employee was not consulted about the possibility of being suspended. The failure to consult the employee disadvantaged him by depriving the employee of the opportunity to have his views heard and considered.

The ERA held that the employee was justifiably dismissed as the employer’s investigation process complied with its internal policy documents. The employee was aware of his employer's concerns regarding his refusal to comply with instructions, and was given the opportunity to respond to those concerns. The employer genuinely considered his response before terminating his employment.

The ERA ordered the employer to pay $4,000 compensation to the employee but made no award for lost wages as the employee had been paid throughout the suspension period.

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington

Employee unjustifiably disadvantaged after having her pay and hours cut…

An employee working as a bakery manager has resigned after having her pay and hours reduced.

The Employment Relations Authority upheld the employee’s personal grievance claim for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified constructive dismissal.

The employee was earning $21 an hour and was working at least 30 hours per week when the employer took over the bakery business. There was a mutual understanding that she would remain as the manager and would retain the same responsibilities that she had under the previous ownership.

The ERA held that the employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the employer who took over her rostering and stock control duties, and altered and decreased her work hours and pay to just $16.50.

The ERA ordered the employer to pay the employee more than $8,000 in lost wages, and $700 in unpaid holiday pay plus $10,000 compensation. 

Alan Knowsley

Employment Lawyer Wellington