Three years after dismissal, her case never got off the ground due to timin
A New Zealand nurse lost her challenge to a COVID-19 vaccine dismissal because she never formally raised a grievance—even though she thought she had.
Sarah Brewer's case offers a stark lesson in workplace communication. The oncology nurse, who treated cancer patients at Canopy Cancer Care Limited, was dismissed on January 7, 2022, after refusing vaccination under the government's health sector mandate. Nearly three years later, she filed a grievance claiming unjustifiable dismissal.
On January 16, 2026, the Employment Relations Authority shut down her case before it could even begin. The reason? Brewer missed the 90-day deadline to raise a personal grievance because her earlier communications with her employer didn't actually count as one.
The timeline reveals how the disconnect happened. After New Zealand's Vaccination Order took effect on October 25, 2021, requiring health practitioners to be fully vaccinated by January 1, 2022, Brewer began exchanging emails with Canopy Cancer Care. She sent detailed questions about vaccine testing, contents, and safety. Her October 31, 2021 letter concluded: "Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is no threat to my health I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment …"
A week later, on November 4, 2021, Brewer wrote again. This time she acknowledged the pressure facing employers to vaccinate staff working with vulnerable patients. She stated: "I am disappointed that a short-sighted and overreaching Government mandate leaves both of us in the position we now find ourselves in."
After a December 8, 2021 meeting where Brewer proposed role modifications that the company rejected as impractical, Canopy Cancer Care gave her four weeks' notice. Her employment ended the following month.
Then silence—until September 30, 2024, when Brewer filed her Statement of Problem. She argued that her October and November 2021 emails had raised personal grievances about vaccine safety and workplace consultation. Canopy Cancer Care disagreed, noting this was the first they'd heard of any formal grievance and that it fell well outside the statutory timeframe.
Authority member Eleanor Robinson examined whether Brewer's letters met the legal test for raising a grievance: "In order for a communication to constitute the raising of a personal grievance, it must make the employer sufficiently aware of the grievance to be able to respond to it."
They didn't. Robinson found Brewer's communications asked questions about the vaccine itself but never alleged her employer had done anything wrong. The nurse's frustration appeared aimed at the government mandate, not her employer's conduct. Her letters requested information and expressed concerns but stopped short of raising a formal employment grievance.
The determination noted Brewer never identified specific actions by Canopy Cancer Care that disadvantaged her or signaled she wanted the company to address a workplace grievance. Without meeting these requirements within 90 days of her January 2022 dismissal, her case couldn't proceed.
For HR teams, the case underscores a tricky reality: employees often believe they're raising formal complaints when they're simply expressing concerns or asking questions. The difference carries significant procedural consequences. Organizations need clear processes for recognizing when employee communications cross from general dissatisfaction into formal grievance territory.
The three-year delay between dismissal and filing also raises questions about whether pandemic-era employment decisions might face renewed scrutiny, though strict procedural safeguards remain in place for employers who document and respond to employee communications appropriately.
