Employee not given chance to defend herself from 'real basis' of removal, court says
A former manager working for the South Waikato Achievement Trust (SWAT) won over $140,000 after the Employment Court ruled that she was unjustifiably dismissed by her former employer.
Virginia Henry was employed by SWAT, a Tokoroa-based business providing service for people with disabilities, for 18 years. She was promoted to a managerial position as "2IC Residential Co-ordinator" in 2017 and reported directly to CEO Russel Ensor.
She was dismissed, however, after a SWAT investigation found that she had "not acted promptly and properly in dealing with a verbal report," where an employee allegedly physically mistreated a disabled resident in SWAT accommodation.
According to SWAT's investigation, Henry belatedly pursued the report with the "'inappropriate purpose' of seeking some further disciplinary action against the employee with whom her working relationship had become dysfunctional."
ERA decision
Henry raised two grievances to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) on the matter, where she said the process and her suspension during it was unjustified.
She also alleged that her employer's decision was unfair, and the outcome imposed on her was "disproportionate to her conduct."
The ERA, however, ruled in favour SWAT, citing its actions in investigating Henry's conduct and in coming to the decision to dismiss her.
According to the ERA, SWAT's actions were "within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances at the time."
"Accordingly, Ms Henry's claims of personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal are declined," the ERA said.
Henry was then ordered to pay $14,000 as contribution to the costs of representation incurred by SWAT during the legal process.
Employment Court decision
Henry, however, appealed the ERA's decision to the Employment Court, which ruled in her favour saying she was "unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed."
"The Trust did not adequately disclose to her the reasons for it and there was no proper basis for reaching that decision," the court said in its ruling.
The court also pointed out that Henry was removed from her workplace due to her bad temper, a reason Ensor did not give to the former manager.
"Compounding that difficulty is the fact that Ms Henry was deprived of an opportunity to address what appears to have been the real basis for her suspension, Mr Ensor's concern about her alleged temper," the court said.
Henry initially requested reinstatement to her former role, which the court said was "not practicable or reasonable."
SWAT is now ordered to pay Henry lost remuneration of over $52,000, special damages worth over $8,000, and compensation for loss of dignity worth $35,000.
In another ruling, the court said SWAT should also pay Henry over $32,000 for taking her appeal to the court, $14,000 for costs in defending her case before the ERA, and over $1,900 in disbursements.
