Fear of an employee's reaction is never a defence for bypassing fair process
A New Zealand engineering firm has been ordered to pay six months' lost wages plus compensation after suspending and dismissing an engineer without giving her the chance to respond first.
The case, decided by the Employment Relations Authority on 22 April 2026, offers a sharp lesson for HR teams about what happens when fear of an employee's reaction overrides the duty to give them a fair hearing. Permanent non-publication orders were made covering the employee, the employer and its witnesses, with the Authority finding that the evidence regarding the employee's personal situation would be reasonably likely to cause her significant harm, if published.
The structural engineer, identified only as FVG, had started work with the company in January 2022. Tensions surfaced almost immediately. By 1 April 2022, an administration assistant complained to the country manager about FVG, alleging loud and rude behaviour and demeaning comments. FVG was not provided with a copy of the complaint and says she was not aware of it until February 2024.
After a new structural team manager was appointed in May 2022, the relationship between FVG and her manager deteriorated. There were disputes over emails sent to clients, accusations of shouting in the open-plan office, and FVG's mentions of going to court. In June 2023, FVG received a formal first written warning, with the company describing her behaviour as unprofessional and citing concerns including arguing with other staff members, making personal comments, being aggressive and disrespectful, and shouting in the office.
Things escalated in late 2023. On 17 November 2023, FVG received a calendar invite from her manager that appeared to schedule a 24-hour meeting. He later said he had forgotten to change it to a specific time, which the Authority found credible. FVG became distressed, mentioned the possibility of self-harm, and an ambulance was called. A fire incident on around 5 December 2023, a heated exchange involving a colleague on 8 December 2023, and a trespass notice issued by a client on 13 January 2024 all added to the company's concerns.
Then came the moment that proved decisive.
On 8 February 2024, the Australia-based HR manager flew to New Zealand and called FVG into a meeting. FVG was not told beforehand that suspension was being considered. The Authority recorded the country manager's concern that if FVG were given notice before the meeting she would come in and cry in the office, with his view being: "She can do anything insane if given a chance to comment".
The Authority was unimpressed. It found FVG was not given the opportunity to comment on the possibility of suspension before she was suspended, and that the suspension relied on a series of complaints and events, the oldest of which had occurred over 20 months before in April 2022, with the most recent events some three months before the suspension was imposed.
An investigation followed. The HR manager interviewed 12 people in one day, though from the report this was not 12 sessions, a group of two staff and another group of four staff were interviewed collectively. FVG was sent an investigation report on 26 February 2024 informing her of a preliminary decision to recommend that her employment be terminated with notice. After she filed a 25-page response and raised a bullying grievance, the company switched course and summarily dismissed her on 8 March 2024. No reason was provided in the communications for the change from termination on notice to summary dismissal, and FVG was not given a chance to comment on the change.
The dismissal letter introduced new grounds, including failure to follow instructions, that had not appeared in the earlier report. The Authority also noted that losing two major clients was raised in the statement in reply as a reason FVG had not been aware of before. A suggestion of racial bias surfaced only at the final stage, based on a remark FVG was alleged to have made to her manager. FVG's version is that she said "are you human?" when asked to provide a response within what she regarded as a very short period of time, while the country manager's evidence was the question was "are you an animal?".
The Authority concluded that YJN "did not act in the manner which a fair and reasonable employer could have done" and ruled the dismissal unjustified. It also found the suspension unjustified.
Reinstatement was declined. The Authority accepted FVG had contributed to the situation through repeated shouting and reduced her remedies by 30%. She was awarded six months' lost wages less the 30% deduction, $4,900 for the suspension grievance, $18,900 for the dismissal grievance, and reimbursement of the $71.55 filing fee. Her bullying complaint and a separate grievance about her employee classification were not upheld.
The case is a reminder that suspension conversations cannot be skipped because they are uncomfortable. Relying on stale complaints, switching disciplinary outcomes mid-process, and introducing fresh allegations at the dismissal stage all carry real cost. And when behaviour might have a health dimension, choosing the disciplinary track without first exploring wellbeing concerns can leave even a well-intentioned employer exposed.
