Rigid style, repeated complaints led to dismissal, Authority finds
A former project manager at Hamilton City Council (HCC) has lost his claims of unjustifiable dismissal and unjustified disadvantage over alleged bullying at work.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that HCC was justified in dismissing the project manager, concluding that the move was "a decision open to a fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances at the relevant time."
Complaints against the manager
The project manager first joined HCC's Facilities Unit in August 2019 but quickly became the subject of repeated complaints from internal clients and key contractors.
Within his first six months, management "began noticing issues with his behaviour particularly in relation to how he engaged with HCC's clients."
Complaints alleged that he was "rude, obstructive, and uncooperative," with contractors describing his communication style as "confrontational and aggressive" and "a bullying approach."
HCC initially tried to support the project manager with direct feedback, internal coaching, and an external coach, but when complaints continued, it commissioned an independent external investigation.
The external probe concluded that seven incidents, taken together, represented "a significant pattern of breach of the HCC Code of Conduct."
It also found that the project manager's behaviour was "impacting working relationships sufficiently to consider whether it reached the level of serious misconduct."
Warnings and support plan
On the basis of the investigation, HCC initiated a disciplinary process, where it issued a first written warning for misconduct to the project manager, warning that further breaches could lead to a final warning or dismissal.
A structured return-to-work plan was put in place, including weekly meetings with his manager, support at contractor meetings, staged project handovers, and continued coaching.
Despite this, complaints about the project manager's conduct continued after his return, including allegations that he failed to attend scheduled meetings, disrupted project handovers, excluded his manager from communications, and did not follow the agreed support plan.
Further disciplinary process commenced, during which HCC advised the project manager that the new concerns could amount to misconduct and/or serious misconduct.
During this period, the project manager and his representative raised bullying allegations and mental health concerns, and claimed his treatment was retaliatory, including under the Protected Disclosures Act.
ERA: Council acted fairly
But the ERA rejected the project manager's claim that his employer failed to properly investigate bullying.
The ERA said it was appropriate that HCC's HR outlined his options, provided the bullying and harassment policy, and left the decision with him.
It further ruled that HCC's approach, from early coaching and support, through independent investigation, to staged return-to-work and follow‑up disciplinary steps, met the test of procedural fairness.
"I find HCC had substantive justification for its conclusion," the ERA ruled. "The decision was reached following a prolonged process throughout which I find the HCC acted in a fair and reasonable manner."
HCC dismissed the project manager after finding evidence of both misconduct and serious misconduct, a decision the ERA also upheld.
"I find that this was a decision open to a fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances at the relevant time," it ruled.
