ERA rules that her dismissal at work was justified
A New Zealand social worker who refused to return to work following a workplace investigation has lost her personal grievance claim at the Employment Relations Authority, which found that her dismissal on grounds of medical incapacity was fully justified.
The social worker, formerly employed by a sexual harm support services trust, claimed unjustifiable dismissal and unjustified disadvantage after the employer ended her employment in September 2024. The ERA dismissed all claims, finding no basis for any of the grievances raised.
The dispute began on December 20, 2023, when the social worker transported a client from Tauranga to Whakatane in a company vehicle after the client failed to secure emergency accommodation through the Ministry of Social Development.
A miscommunication between two managers, the social worker's direct line manager and another manager, led the employer to investigate whether the social worker had followed proper protocols and whether she had been truthful with management.
The employer invited the social worker to a disciplinary meeting, characterising its concerns as a "failure to ensure the safety of yourself, colleagues and clients" and potential "dishonesty."
The social worker went on sick leave from February 2024, citing the stress of what she described as false allegations, and never returned to the workplace.
Following the investigation, the employer accepted the social worker's version of events and took no disciplinary action. Despite this outcome, she declined to return, saying her managers had taken no responsibility and that the workplace remained unsafe.
She demanded that her reporting lines be changed, new policies be introduced to her satisfaction, and that the two managers admit their "incompetence" and that they had "lied and colluded."
ERA finds dismissal justified
The employer agreed to change the social worker's reporting lines and updated its risk assessment procedures but declined to compel the managers to make admissions they did not agree with.
With the social worker still on sick leave in late July 2024, the employer advised her it was considering ending her employment on grounds of medical incapacity. She was terminated on September 11, 2024.
The ERA found the decision was justified. Over more than eight months, the social worker had provided medical certificates describing her as having an illness or disability "sufficient" that she was unable to work, but never disclosed a diagnosis or offered any indication of when she might return.
"Having told [the employers] repeatedly and over some eight months that she was not able to work, [the employee] cannot complain that [the employer] took her at face value, accepted her medical certificates, and decided after consultation which did not provide any new information, that it could not hold her position open any longer," the ERA ruled.
The ERA also rejected the social worker's claims of unjustified disadvantage, including her allegation that the employer had improperly considered a Facebook post in which she stated she was "looking forward to our new life in Perth."
The employer had raised the post with the social worker as a potential indicator she did not intend to return, but the dismissal letter and evidence from the acting chief executive confirmed it played no part in the termination decision. The ERA accepted that evidence.
On the broader question of the employer's conduct, the ERA found it had engaged substantively and in good faith throughout.
"[The employer] actively engaged with [the employee] over a considerable period of time," she wrote, adding that it "took her concerns seriously, and made changes that were objectively advantageous to her."
