There were three prongs to Ms S’s disadvantage grievance which were:
· That she was subject to bullying and TROK failed to provide her with a safe working environment;
· That she was issued with a written warning which was unjustified; and
· She was unjustifiably suspended from her employment.
Bullying Allegation
In terms of the bullying allegation, Ms S said that from her first day at work she was excluded and made to feel unwelcome, and was treated as an outsider. One of the other employees had issues with her appearing to be non-Maori and was rude towards her. Ms S wrote a number of letters to her employer complaining about the treatment that she was receiving from her colleague. She also outlined her concerns about the way in which the employer was handling her complaints.
It appears that TROK did nothing in response to the multiple letters. Ms S suffered from a breakdown which required medical attention due to the stress that she was under from her job.
The ERA was “staggered” to read that the employer in fact considered that Ms S had not made a formal complaint regarding bullying and harassment to which they could respond. It held that the employer should have carried out an investigation.
Written Warning
TROK had also warned Ms S for making inappropriate comments that had the potential to bring the organisation into disrepute. The ERA held that the process used in investigating the problem contained errors and omissions that were significant enough to make the warning unjustified. Ms S was never advised she was involved in a disciplinary process or what the possible consequences could be. The decision-maker who issued the warning was not involved in any of the meetings during the disciplinary process. The warning lacked procedural fairness and failed to follow the policy set out in the Ms S’ Employment Agreement.
Suspension
It gets worse. Ms S was then suspended for failing to attend a meeting to address how the parties could move forward in their employment relationship and for insisting that she be allowed to have a support person present at that meeting. Regular readers will know that an employee’s request to have a support person is usually perfectly reasonable and ought to be complied with in most situations, particularly when the relationship is strained, such as this one.
The ERA held that Ms S’s employment was subject to disadvantageous actions by her employer which were unjustified.
Because everything went so badly for Ms S, she was on sick leave for quite some time. During that period she was terminated due to medical incapacity and was paid her final pay.
Ms S was awarded $15,000 in compensation for hurt, humiliation and distress under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
