Court says charitable provider failed to follow its own rehabilitation policy
The Employment Court has found that a mental health and disability services provider unjustifiably dismissed a community support worker who developed PTSD after a violent threat from a resident, ordering compensation and six months' lost wages.
Chief Judge Christina Inglis upheld a challenge brought by the former employee to an earlier Employment Relations Authority ruling that had favoured the employer.
The worker was employed in a community home for seven high‑needs male residents in Ōamaru.
In January 2021, one resident, referred to as CT, became agitated during dinner and, according to the worker, threatened to slit her throat.
Police were called, but no charges were laid. The worker, described in the judgment as petite, had been working alone with CT, whom the Court accepted was "a very big man."
Following the incident, the worker was diagnosed with complex PTSD and went on sick leave.
Within weeks, the employer began both a disciplinary process into her handling of the incident and, shortly after, a medical incapacity process that would ultimately lead to her dismissal in July 2021.
Rushed process criticised
Inglis held that the employer had not given the worker a reasonable opportunity to recover.
The Court noted that previous cases involving PTSD indicated that "recovery from or improvement in the symptoms [of] PTSD should occur within 18 months of treatment," yet the worker was dismissed after only six months.
The judge was critical of the decision to proceed while a specialist assessment and [return‑to‑work] planning were still underway through ACC.
"In the present case, [the employer] dismissed [the worker] for medical incapacity after six months and refused to wait for a specialist report, which was being prepared by ACC, into her condition," the Court noted.
"[The employer's] decision to terminate was also made against the backdrop of advice that ACC was working on a [return‑to‑work] plan, and that a return to work was looking positive. [The employer] did not engage in this process as it had been requested to do."
Instead, the organisation repeatedly pressed the worker to attend meetings and provide information she did not yet have.
Failure to follow own policy
The Court further found the employer did not honour its own health and safety manual, which recorded that the organisation is committed to supporting the rehabilitation of any employee injured during their employment.
"The focus was not on rehabilitation; if it had been, it is likely that a different approach would have been adopted," the Court said.
The employer argued that the worker's prolonged absence was creating serious operational pressures in a small labour market and that it needed to fill her role for the sake of residents and other staff.
But the Court rejected that justification as insufficiently supported by evidence.
"I accept that [the worker's] absence gave rise to issues within the workplace, and other staff were likely aggrieved at being asked to cover shifts that they would not otherwise have been asked to do," the Court said.
"Nevertheless, I conclude that it is more likely than not that the operational difficulties complained of as justifying termination were ones that [the employer] could, but chose not to, manage or attempt to manage."
"It follows that I am not satisfied that what [the employer] did and how it did it were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all of the circumstances. The decision to dismiss, and the process followed to get to that point, were unjustifiable."
The Court awarded the worker NZ$30,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, placing her case in the middle compensation band, and ordered the employer to pay the equivalent of six months' lost wages, less any income she received from ACC during that period.
