ERA finds that the employer followed 'no restructuring process' in the case
A contact visit supervisor who accidentally sent a critical text message to the very person it was about has been awarded more than $21,000 after her employer fired her without explanation.
The supervisor was employed by an Auckland-based company contracted by the Ministry of Justice to oversee court-ordered family contact sessions.
As heard by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), the employee sent a message containing a negative reference to a visiting parent to that parent's number in November 2024, having intended it for her supervisor. The parent complained.
What followed was nearly two weeks of unexplained removal from the roster, reduced pay, and an opaque investigation.
During the two weeks before her dismissal, the worker said she "felt like she was left hanging not knowing what was coming next." She was paid just five hours per week despite averaging 17 hours beforehand.
Termination from work
The employee's work ended in a termination letter that offered no reasons whatsoever, according to the ERA.
The letter stated only that the directors had "decided, as per your employment contract, to give you two weeks' notice effective from tomorrow."
It arrived on November 14, 2024, one day before a meeting scheduled to address the very incident had been due to take place.
The company argued before the ERA that the termination was a genuine redundancy driven by declining referrals from the Ministry of Justice, applying a "last on, first off" selection criterion.
Was the dismissal justified?
ERA Member Sarah Blick, however, was unconvinced.
"Ultimately it is not possible to conclude on the evidence presented that the reasons [the employer] now gives for the termination were genuine and were the predominant motive or reason for the termination," she said in the ruling.
Blick found the company had followed "no restructuring process" with the employee, never informed her that her job was at risk, and never consulted her before deciding to terminate.
She also found the company had breached its good faith obligations under the Employment Relations Act 2000, which require employers to give affected employees access to relevant information and a genuine opportunity to respond before decisions affecting their employment are made.
"[The employee's] dismissal was unjustified on both procedural and substantive grounds," the ERA member ruled.
According to the ERA, the investigation into the complaint also lacked "clarity and notice around the process being followed and potential outcomes."
"[The employer's] actions affected [the employee's] terms and conditions of employment to her disadvantage because there was no consultation, she was prevented from working and received five hours' pay for each of the weeks when on average she worked more hours than that," Blick added.
"[The employer] has not been able to justify its actions for doing so. [The employee] has also established grievances for unjustified disadvantage."
The Authority awarded the worker $1,560 gross in lost wages plus 8% holiday pay, and $20,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
No deduction was made for employee contribution. Although the worker had made the original error that triggered the complaint, Blick ruled the unjustifiability arose entirely from obligations that were the employer's alone to meet.
