The case of Buchanan v Vice-Chancellor, University of Auckland has had much publicity recently. In this case, Buchanan, a lecturer at the University of Auckland sent a series of rude emails to a student, who had asked for an extension on an assignment because her Dad had died.
The email that led to Buchanan’s downfall involved him telling his student that she was “not suitable for an undergraduate degree” and that she was the “worst performer in the class”. He called her “culturally driven” excuses “lame”. Later on, Buchanan did apologise for his email. He explained that his behaviour was because he had been asked for several assignment extensions that day, which resulted in extreme annoyance.
I have said this before and I will say it again - NEVER send an email when you are in a rage. Wait until you have calmed down before pressing send. The instant nature of email is a disaster waiting to happen if you don’t think before you act. What I do is that I write the email and then send it to a colleage in the firm and ask them if they think I am over - reacting . Generally the only time I ask is when I know deep down that I am over reacting and so I don’t even need to have the colleague give their opinion. Its all about deep breaths!!!!
The second lesson that can be learnt from this case is one for employers. The importance of following correct procedure in the disciplinary process cannot be over emphasized.
Understandably, the University invoked a disciplinary inquiry into Buchanan as a result of his offensive email. They did so to determine whether his conduct amounted to serious misconduct, which in turn could result in his dismissal.
The course of conduct that an employer has to follow when undertaking disciplinary proceedings is as follows:
Inform the employee of the specific allegations of misconduct against them (in writing) and let them know if dismissal is a possibility.
Arrange for a meeting to be held and encourage the employee to bring a support person to the meeting.
At the meeting, give the employee an opportunity to respond to the allegations made.
Before making a decision, consider the employee’s response in an unbiased way, free from pre-determination and uninfluenced by irrelevant considerations.
Only after all these steps have been completed can a decision be made.
The Employment Relations Authority found that the University failed to follow this process, and therefore a fair and reasonable employer would not have dismissed Buchanan in the circumstances. The University had taken into account a previous incident involving inappropriate emails which had already been resolved. Buchanan’s conduct had been escalated to serious misconduct, when he only breached the misconduct rules as defined in the employment agreement. Finally, the University failed to take into account some suggestions made by Buchanan which could have ensured a similar situation did not reoccur.
The Authority concluded that Buchanan was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded $51,000 gross lost remuneration and $15,000 conmpensation.
This article originally appeared in the Southland Times Work To Rule column. Mary-Jane Thomas is head of Preston Russell's employment law team. Contact her by clicking here
