But ERA rules that employer blurred investigation and discipline in dismissing HR manager
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ruled that a food distributor unjustifiably dismissed its former human resources manager, finding the employer's disciplinary process denied her a genuine chance to argue against dismissal.
ERA Member Claire English found the company had merged its investigation and disciplinary stages, leaving the former HR manager unable to respond to the disciplinary case against her until a decision to dismiss had already been reached.
"She was not given an opportunity to feed back on the findings of that investigation. She was not given an opportunity to comment on whether disciplinary action should be taken as a result of that investigation," the ERA said.
The HR manager also never met the decision-maker, who is the general manager. His evidence showed he continued to discuss his preliminary and final decisions with the two staff who ran the investigation, an HR business partner and another manager. This was not disclosed to her.
"I find this confusion of roles is significant," the ERA said.
HR manager's 'typical Asian' remark
The HR manager joined the company in November 2016 as an accounts payable clerk and was appointed HR manager in February 2022, alongside her health and safety role.
In May 2025, two co-workers overheard her calling a manager at another branch a "typical Asian," or possibly "typical bloody Asian," during an exchange about coffee. Both complained that the remark was inappropriate and racist. The manager it was directed at did not complain.
The company invited her to an investigation meeting and told her to keep the process confidential. Further allegations followed: that she had discussed the matter with colleagues, that her son, who also worked at the company, had learned of it, and that she had phoned the manager in the HR business partner's presence after the formal meeting.
Before the ERA, the HR manager said she was answering colleagues' questions about her wellbeing and that the HR business partner had told her to "check in on" the manager.
The HR business partner denied this, saying she was prompting the HR manager to reflect on the impact of her words. The HR manager denied speaking to her son about the matter but accepted he appeared to have overheard her at home.
She also argued the remark was not serious because it reflected a friendly relationship and a workplace culture of banter. She said she had been expected to accept banter mocking her back injury.
The company argued that, as a senior manager, the HR manager's "repeated lapses of judgement" had caused it to lose trust and confidence in her. It dismissed her on 5 June 2025 with pay in lieu of notice.
'Inherent unfairness' in dismissal
But the ERA also criticised the company for adding allegations as the process went on.
The HR manager faced three sets of allegations, raised at different times and in different documents, with some carrying a potential written warning and others potential dismissal. Her dismissal letter ultimately cited "the cumulative impact of your actions."
"There is an inherent unfairness in [the company's] decision to continue to add allegations to the investigation and then to apparently change the parameters of the potential outcome at the end of the process," the ERA said.
It concluded that the failures "were more than minor and led to [the HR manager] losing a genuine opportunity to persuade the decision-maker as to the appropriate outcome."
The company was ordered to pay her $17,531.25 gross in lost remuneration and $17,000 for hurt and humiliation. Both amounts reflect a 15% reduction because the ERA found she contributed to her situation "by repeatedly failing to keep the process confidential even after she had been reminded of her obligations both in writing and verbally."
Her claim for lost wages beyond the statutory three months was rejected, given "the lack of evidence as to the steps [the HR manager] took to find further employment."
