How procedural errors in disciplinary investigation led to substantial payout
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who was summarily dismissed for alleged serious misconduct after more than five years of employment.
The worker challenged both the substance of the allegations and the fairness of the process that led to her dismissal.
She argued that her employer failed to provide her with sufficient information to properly respond to allegations, placed unreasonable weight on preliminary responses rather than her more considered explanations, and escalated minor recording issues to serious misconduct without proper investigation. She also contended that her dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances.
The case highlights considerations regarding workplace investigations, disciplinary procedures, and the requirements for a justified dismissal under New Zealand employment law.
The worker had been employed by The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated (RSPCA) as a kennel coordinator. After being promoted to a team leader position on a fixed-term basis, she took a dog home in a fostering arrangement. When the dog was returned in early January 2023, it had failed to put on required weight, leading to her first disciplinary issue.
In February 2023, after a disciplinary process, the worker received a formal written warning, stepped down from the acting team leader position, and completed a six-week performance improvement plan. During this process, she disclosed her ADHD diagnosis, but the RSPCA did not take any formal steps in response to this information.
In May 2023, her role changed due to restructuring. She began having difficulty recording animal treatments as she shared an office with her manager who frequently had closed-door meetings, preventing access to the computer needed for record-keeping.
By September 2023, the RSPCA invited the worker to a meeting regarding several concerns, including failure to record treatments, not ensuring animals were desexed, not following daily schedules, and lateness. While she was on leave, a new allegation was added regarding failure to administer prescribed medication to a dog.
When she attended the meeting without a support person, she admitted missing recording treatments but denied failing to administer them. For the most serious allegation about the dog's medication, she denied knowledge of ear drops being prescribed.
After this process, in November 2023, the RSPCA summarily dismissed the worker for serious misconduct, claiming she had breached their Code of Conduct and citing a loss of trust and confidence.
The ERA found significant flaws in the RSPCA's investigation. The Authority noted:
"The process [the employer] followed in respect to the first allegation was unfair to [the worker] because [the employer] did not provide [the worker] with a full list of specific missed treatments until after [the worker] had discussed [the employer's] concern about missed treatments on at least two occasions with her manager."
The RSPCA also failed to properly investigate when ear drop medication was prescribed and delivered:
"Based on the evidence before the Authority, I conclude [the employer] did not fully and fairly investigate this allegation. In particular, [the employer] did not: confirm with the vet or vet student when the ear drop medication had been prescribed, and when it had been provided to [the employer]."
The Authority found the RSPCA had unreasonably relied on the worker's preliminary responses rather than her more considered later explanations.
The ERA determined the worker had been unjustifiably dismissed. The Authority was particularly concerned that the RSPCA allowed the worker to continue working between her disciplinary meeting and dismissal, which contradicted their claims about the seriousness of the alleged misconduct:
"[The employer's] action of allowing or requiring [the worker] to continue working when she had been accused of serious misconduct in relation to the gross neglect of animals was objectively inconsistent with [the employer's] stated view about the seriousness of [the worker's] actions."
The ERA concluded that the dismissal was disproportionate:
"I accept [the worker's] submission that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the circumstances, and [the employer] closed its mind to considering alternatives to dismissal. These were not the actions of a fair and reasonable employer."
The worker described losing her job as devastating. Her mother testified that she was "broken" and "depressed," having lost her dream job and confidence. Although she found new employment, it was not in her field and only paid minimum wage.
The ERA recognised that "the impact of losing a job in a sector with a deeply held ethos of caring for animals would be devastating." The Authority stated the worker had given "significant and compelling evidence detailing the impact the summary dismissal has had on her from an emotional and financial perspective."
The ERA awarded the worker $20,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, plus $9,192.74 in lost wages. The Authority rejected the RSPCA's arguments that the worker had contributed to the situation, finding that no reduction in remedies was appropriate.
