Employer’s concerns follow alleged worker’s boundary breach with the client
A support worker providing psychosocial services to vulnerable mental health clients was moved to alternative duties and then placed on discretionary paid leave after multiple managers observed concerning behavior.
The worker sought interim reinstatement to her usual role supporting clients, claiming the employer took unlawful retaliatory steps after she raised concerns about client care.
The employer opposed reinstatement, arguing genuine wellbeing concerns based on observations by experienced mental health professionals warranted requiring a fitness-to-work assessment.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) gave a preliminary determination which addressed whether interim orders should restore the worker to her position while substantive personal grievances remained unresolved.
Background and initial client relationship concerns
The worker began as a support worker providing psychosocial services in a community mobile team in August 2024.
The role involved supporting clients by assisting them to develop living skills and relationships. The worker held a Masters degree in Social Work and hoped to complete provisional hours for full registration.
The worker's employment initially progressed uneventfully with positive feedback about her work. In late April 2025, she recorded in clinical notes that a client she had supported for seven months was ready for reassignment. Standard practice was to honor such requests.
On her return from annual leave, during discussions about the client, the worker's manager observed her becoming emotional, speaking at a fast pace and crying.
The worker declined an invite to a handover meeting and expressed dissatisfaction with her manager's handling. She subsequently visited the client's home, intending to drop a framed photo in the letterbox.
Manager concerns escalate to alternative duties placement
The worker's manager read the clinical record and emailed her in mid-May, noting dedication but also concern about crossing professional boundaries. She was encouraged to consider taking leave to rest and reflect. The worker submitted an electronic complaint through the employer's system about handling of client support.
The worker raised concerns that her manager's email meant her employment was in jeopardy. The ER advisor attempted to provide reassurance this was not the case. The manager recalled the worker unexpectedly leaving a handover meeting, appearing to have an emotional breakdown.
In late May, the worker raised another complaint against her manager, accusing him of misrepresentations to advance a disciplinary process.
The manager was finding dealing with the worker's situation increasingly taxing, with multiple emails and meetings with the worker in an emotional state.
With the manager indicating the situation was distressing and affecting his wellbeing, the matter was escalated to the regional manager.
Regional manager meetings and paid leave decision
The regional manager contacted the worker, indicating her concerns were being examined and offering support options.
The worker's district manager spoke with her and observed her becoming distressed and tearful. The district manager was concerned and offered a short break from work.
The worker's union representative and the worker met with the regional manager and ER advisor to discuss alternative duties and support in early July.
The worker was dissatisfied with the communication to her manager's team regarding her being on leave. She advised she had formally withdrawn consent for union representation.
The regional manager met with the worker in mid-July, with the meeting adjourned after she became emotional. The manager's impression at both meetings was of the worker becoming agitated, speaking over him and talking excessively. He considered she was highly emotive, moving quickly from sobbing to laughing and struggling to keep on topic.
Manager observations trigger fitness assessment requirement
The regional manager described that, when taken together, various incidents caused him serious doubts about the worker's ability to maintain professional standards.
He developed serious concern for the worker, staff and client wellbeing. The worker approached another manager who became concerned about her wellbeing and reported it to HR.
A national manager with advanced qualifications in social work became involved. She phoned the worker, telling her she was seriously concerned about her welfare and suggested discretionary paid leave. She also mentioned seeking a psychological assessment of fitness to practice prior to return to work.
The worker left the office. Texts between the two had the national manager saying she needed to take the next steps, given that the worker didn't respond to the leave request. The worker replied she had gone home as requested and would wait to hear from management.
Report disputes and assessment adequacy concerns
The national manager wrote to the worker outlining observed behavior prompting questions about her health and wellbeing.
The worker's consent to undertake an assessment by a clinical psychologist was sought. The employer would cover the cost and consult with her in preparing the brief to the psychologist.
The worker sought a mental health report herself from a psychologist she had seen via telehealth sessions. The report noted preoccupation with workplace conflict and some anxiety but no mental illness impairing her capacity to perform job requirements. Her distress was contextually appropriate and reactive to environmental stressors.
The worker was hopeful that report would satisfy the employer to allow her return to work. The organisation had reservations the psychologist didn't have full visibility of context and specific concerns. Key areas remained unanswered including assessment of current mental health status and capacity to manage work demands.
Employment terms and practitioner selection disputes
Under the worker's employment agreement, the employer had prima facie entitlement to request assessment by a registered practitioner acceptable to both parties.
This was where there was an objective of supporting the worker's ability to perform her role satisfactorily. The employment agreement provision referred to the registered practitioner being agreed by both parties.
The consent form initially sent to the worker had a clinic specified. She had not agreed to or been consulted about that clinic. When she raised concerns about this, the employer said she could choose her own practitioner.
The employer sought the worker be assessed by an independent mental health professional with occupational health expertise. The worker reported undertaking various activities she considered would assist with return to work. She remained committed to returning to her usual work with clients.
ERA's analysis of unjustified action claims
The ERA found it was not possible to establish on an interim basis the retaliatory, premeditated fabrication suggestions by the worker. These needed to be left for a substantive investigation if required.
Subject to establishment of improper motive, it was difficult to see an argument succeeding that the worker shouldn't have been taken away from client work.
Five managers and staff including experienced mental health and social work practitioners saw the worker over multiple occasions.
They were concerned about her behavior including agitation, intensity, highly emotional responses, tangential thinking and distress. The worker provided evidence about her performance before May 2025 but the employer said its concerns began after mid-May.
The assessment was undertaken by a clinical psychologist as the employer had sought. However, the evidence was provided solely on the worker's self-reporting. The employer considered the resulting report should be treated with caution for that reason.
Interim reinstatement assessment and practicability concerns
Given the question about whether there had been a breach of professional boundaries and the worker's lack of cooperation with the employer's assessment involvement, there was doubt about practicability and reasonableness.
The ERA concluded the worker had an arguable case, she should be reinstated to alternative duties only. The Authority did not consider it a strong case by any means.
The balance of convenience weighed in favor of rejecting the interim order sought. The potential harm to the employer and its clients of having the worker back in her original role was uncertain but possibly significant. The worker's actions both before and after removal from usual duties provided basis for the employer's unease.
The Authority seriously considered whether returning to alternative duties might sufficiently move the balance in the worker's favor.
On the untested evidence, her actions significantly impacted managers who were criticized publicly in the workplace. Colleagues may be exposed to ongoing disruption.
Overall justice determination and good faith direction
The worker had an arguable case; the employer should have done more to work with the psychologist to gain an adequate report. Her case for permanent reinstatement was likewise not strong. The balance of convenience favored the employer.
The ERA could not be satisfied, there were sufficient grounds to disturb the assessment of the relative weakness of the worker's case. The employer needed to be able to satisfactorily meet its obligations to the worker, other staff and clients. This required a more detailed and informed understanding of the worker's mental state.
The worker's application was declined. However, the parties were required to work together in good faith with the aim of getting the worker back to work in the organisation. If either is considered, further mediation may assist; they were to let the Authority know.
