'She did not walk out and never return,' ERA states
The Employment Relations Authority has awarded over $20,000 to a former employee of Tasman Lifestyle & Sports Limited (TL) who was unjustifiably dismissed by her employer.
Briana Hylkema, who had been employed by the company since March 2022 to manage two clothing retail stores, was dismissed in September 2023 under the claim of abandonment of her position and medical incapacity.
Hylkema's dismissal followed a period of personal leave to address personal issues.
She returned to work in August 2023, but claims she was subjected to unnecessary stress and humiliation, including being stripped of managerial duties and access to key systems.
Hylkema also alleged that the company exposed her to a colleague's disciplinary process and failed to provide support after her return from leave.
In September 2023, Hylkema was dismissed from her role, with TL stating that she had abandoned her job and was medically unfit to continue.
However, Hylkema disputed the allegations, claiming she had not abandoned her employment and that the company had failed to follow proper procedures regarding medical incapacity.
In its ruling, the ERA found that TL had failed to justify Hylkema's dismissal.
The authority rejected TL's claims that the dismissal was due to misconduct or abandonment.
"I do not accept Ms Hylkema abandoned her employment in the sense of how this can justify a dismissal," the ERA said. "She did not walk out and never return, she did not fail to appear at work without a reason given."
It found that Hylkema had provided a valid medical certificate for a two-week absence and that her communication with the company about her unfit status was not unreasonable.
"Even if I consider that the directors for TL may not have received advice, the approach of suddenly terminating Ms Hylkema's employment due to abandonment in the above circumstances was far from what a fair and reasonable employer could have done."
Meanwhile, the ERA ruled that Hylkema was not unjustifiably disadvantaged in the case.
The ERA concluded that the removal of duties was likely an attempt to ease Hylkema back into work following her personal leave, adding that there was no deliberate attempt to undermine her role at work.
"I find in favour of TL here that its directors did not have a motivation to make Ms Hylkema’s work life more difficult," the ERA ruled. "I do not find Ms Hylkema has shown she was disadvantaged in her employment."
As a result of the unjustified dismissal, the ERA ordered TL to pay Hylkema $12,000 compensation, $3,584 gross for a two-week notice period, and $4,480 in lost wages.
