His 24-year career ended over a jab. His next move cost him $2,500
Twenty-four years on the job ended over a jab - and a flawed process.
New Zealand's Employment Relations Authority has ruled that LEP Engineering Plastics unjustifiably dismissed a long-serving employee who refused COVID-19 vaccination, finding the company's consultation process fell short of its good faith obligations.
The worker had been with the Auckland-based engineering plastics manufacturer for 24 years, spending his final six as an internal sales engineer. When New Zealand entered Level 4 lockdown in August 2021, LEP's branches closed nationwide. The Auckland office reopened on September 22, but the worker continued working from home - he held a mask exemption, and other staff had raised concerns about working near an unvaccinated, unmasked colleague.
That arrangement bought time. It did not resolve the underlying tension.
In late September 2021, LEP circulated a vaccination questionnaire to begin consultation on a company-wide policy. The worker did not answer whether he would get vaccinated. By mid-November, the company's general manager wrote to him directly: LEP was a close-contact business, visitors would need to be fully vaccinated, and because his role was customer-facing, his risk had been assessed as "High" using WorkSafe New Zealand's guidelines.
The worker pushed back. He asked whether an adequate risk assessment had been done. He requested LEP weigh the risk of contracting COVID-19 against the risk of "taking the jab." He raised concerns about obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the availability of "atmospheric testing and breath analysis" - a point the general manager considered misconceived.
LEP provided him with both a role risk assessment and an individual risk assessment. Both placed him at high risk, requiring either vaccination or remote work. The company also took advice from an external HR adviser, who confirmed that client-facing roles met at least three of four Ministry of Health risk indicators.
Here is where the process came unstuck.
The Authority found no documents showing LEP had given the worker the chance to comment on the criteria in either risk assessment before they were finalised. Those assessments then became the basis for ending his employment. Under New Zealand's good faith obligations - specifically section 4(1A) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 - an employer proposing a decision that will adversely affect someone's ongoing employment must provide access to relevant information and a genuine opportunity to comment before the decision is made.
That step, the Authority held, could have been taken without significant added time or expense.
The worker told the Authority he had not seen the assessment criteria until after the fact. He said he would not have classified his role as high risk, arguing he could have maintained two-metre distancing and that clear barriers could have been installed. He also pointed to what he saw as a contradiction: production staff who worked in close physical contact had their roles classified only as "Medium."
The general manager disagreed on all points. But the Authority said it did not matter whether giving him the chance to comment would have changed the outcome. What mattered was that the right existed and was not honoured.
The worker was given four weeks' notice on December 14, 2021. LEP, recognising his long service, allowed him to continue working from home until January 14, 2022. On January 16, he confirmed he remained unvaccinated. The next day, his employment ended effective immediately.
Then came the email.
Using his LEP email address - which he still had access to - the worker emailed over 400 of the company's clients, claiming his employment had been terminated for "declining to undergo an on-going medical procedure, involving an experimental gene therapy."
That move cost LEP two clients. One eventually returned. The other was a small customer whose loss was not significant. But the Authority called the email "highly critical and disparaging" and said it was sent "rather unwisely and, in my view, uncharacteristically" - frustration at the government and its vaccine mandate that was "better directed in a letter to his local Member of Parliament than transferred unfairly to his employer."
The worker sought $35,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings. He told the Authority he had suffered from a low form of depression and anxiety, felt embarrassment and anger, and had less money to support his disabled son. The Authority set compensation at $20,000, noting his length of service but the absence of "truly aggravating features." It then reduced the award by $2,500 to $17,500, reflecting his post-termination conduct.
Lost wages were declined. During cross-examination, it emerged the worker had already received an additional month's salary from LEP. The Authority found a proper consultation would have taken no more than 10 working days, meaning he had been "more than sufficiently compensated for lost wages." The $71.55 filing fee was ordered reimbursed.
Two other claims fell away. The worker had not properly raised an unjustified disadvantage grievance - the Authority found that flagging you might file one in the future is not the same as actually raising one. A breach of contract claim also failed, since any challenge to a dismissal in New Zealand must proceed as a personal grievance, and awarding damages on top of compensation would amount to paying twice for the same thing.
LEP Engineering Plastics, which has since been amalgamated, was ordered to pay $17,500 plus the filing fee by December 3, 2026. Costs remain to be resolved.
For HR teams, the takeaway is direct: give employees a chance to comment on the criteria being used to assess their roles before those assessments become the basis for ending their employment. Even during a pandemic, process shortcuts have a price.
