ERA says University of Canterbury justified in decision
A former University of Canterbury (UC) senior lecturer who paid a colleague to carry out her lecturing responsibilities has lost her unjustified dismissal claim against her employer.
The senior lecturer, Dr. Christina Stachurski, was a continuing part-time employee of the university's English department from March 2009 until her dismissal in October 2020.
She was terminated on the grounds of serious misconduct for personally paying a colleague to perform lectures and jeopardising UC's insurance policy by personally engaging with her colleague to carry out work on her behalf.
She also violated university's staff code of conduct by being absent from her teaching duties without approval and by acting as employer outside delegate authority to another senior lecturer.
Stachurski's defence
However, Stachurski raised to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) a grievance on her dismissal arguing that she was never aware of any policy on arranging substitute lectures, pointing out that staff covered for each other based on formal and personal arrangements.
She defended that she sub-contracted a colleague to cover for her while she worked on a play related to the Canterbury Earthquakes, which she said "badly dislocated" her life.
The senior lecturer also argued that her dismissal was a result of the deteriorating employment relationship between her and the Head of School for Humanities and Creative Arts, Associate Professor Peter Field, and former Head of the English Department (HOD), Dr. Daniel Bedggood.
The deteriorating relationship stems from Stachurski's intent to complain about Bedggood's behaviour and Field's reported failure to address her concerns.
Stachurski also claimed that her dismissal did not pay much regard to her length of service, health and wellbeing, as well as the contextual stress causing factors.
"Dr Stachurski argued it was unreasonable to hold an employee grappling with mental unwellness to the same standard as a healthy person," the ERA heard in its investigation.
ERA's decision
The ERA ruled in favour of the University of Canterbury, saying that the vice chancellor was fair and reasonable in terminating Stachurski.
"I find that the Vice Chancellor as a fair and reasonable employer could have concluded Dr Stachurski's actions in this matter amounted to misconduct that was so serious so as to deeply impair or destroy trust and confidence and justify dismissal," ERA Andrew Dallas said in the ruling.
According to Dallas, Bedggood likely knew that Stachurski asked her colleague to cover for her but did not know that he was paying her to do so.
While also acknowledging that Stachurski did not seek to exploit her colleague, the ERA still sided with the employer in saying it created legal risks for the university.
"Having found the Vice Chancellor was justified in dismissing Dr Stachurski, it is not necessary to consider remedies," Dallas said.
