When 'I may file a grievance' isn't enough to count as raising one
A property manager dismissed over New Zealand's vaccine mandate claimed she flagged a personal grievance on multiple occasions during consultation. The Employment Relations Authority disagreed.
In a determination dated 21 April 2026, the Authority dismissed every claim brought by Lynda Joynt against Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, the social and disability housing arm of the IHC group. Joynt had worked as a Property Manager since 2012, looking after more than 250 homes and other premises used by IHC and its operational service delivery arm IDEA Services to support people with intellectual disabilities.
When the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for the health and disability sector took effect at 11.59pm on 25 October 2021, Accessible Properties told Joynt her role was covered. She disagreed, refused the vaccine, and was given eight weeks' contractual notice on 21 December 2021. Her last day was 15 February 2022. She lodged her statement of problem with the Authority on 2 September 2024, more than two and a half years later.
The headline issue for HR readers is what happened next.
Joynt's case rested on the claim that she had raised a personal grievance with her employer on multiple occasions during the consultation period running from 14 November 2021 to 20 December 2021. The Authority worked through each one and found none of them actually raised a grievance. In her witness statement, Joynt set out nine occasions of "raising a grievance," and the matter was ultimately analysed across ten occasions in the determination.
The starting point was a letter dated 14 November 2021, which Joynt sent after taking legal advice. In it, she wrote that should her choice not to be vaccinated be respected, "I may exercise my right to file a personal grievance." The Authority found this language anticipatory, not a grievance. Then-CEO Greg Orchard later wrote to her on 2 December 2021 stating, "While you have not raised a personal grievance, if you did so I would respond to that at the time on its merits." Joynt replied on 8 December 2021 saying she was "merely outlining all my options as advised by my lawyer" and that pursuing a grievance was certainly not her preference. She did not correct him.
The other occasions were emails and a video meeting in which Joynt argued she was not covered by the mandate, asked to work from home, proposed redeployment options, requested a ministerial exemption under clause 12A of the Order, and raised concerns about a Lease Co-ordinator role she believed she had been unfairly excluded from, alleging informal "coffee interviews" had taken place. Accessible Properties said the role had not yet been created or approved, had no job description, and would have required site visits in any case.
Joynt also used the word "discriminatory" in a 15 December 2021 email. The Authority found the use of that word was insufficient to have raised a personal grievance for discrimination under s 105(1)(k) of the Act. It also noted that vaccination status is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under New Zealand law.
Citing the Employment Court's decision in CE of Manukau Institute of Technology v Zivaljevic, the Authority reiterated that "the employer must know what it is responding to" and must be given sufficient information to address a grievance on its merits. Feedback during a consultation process, the Authority said, is not the same as raising a grievance.
The Authority found Joynt's role was covered by the mandate, that consultation was appropriate, and that no suitable redeployment existed. Her breach of contract and health and safety claims were barred under section 113 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 because they were, in substance, challenges to her dismissal. Accessible Properties, as the successful party, was found entitled to a contribution towards its legal costs, with the amount still to be resolved between the parties.
The case is a reminder that anticipatory language, repeated consultation feedback, and loose use of words like "discriminatory" do not amount to a personal grievance. A grievance must be communicated clearly enough that the employer knows there is a problem to resolve, and the 90-day clock under section 114(1) is unforgiving. Documenting consultation exchanges and clarifying in writing whether an employee considers themselves to have raised a grievance, as Orchard did, can make a decisive difference if a claim later surfaces.
