Former general manager of people wins unjustified constructive dismissal case

Waikato-based Māori health provider Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust (RHOT) has been ordered to pay nearly $87,000 to its former general manager of people, culture, and capability who raised a complaint against a senior leader in the organisation.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ordered RHOT to pay Telisa Jacobsen $44,955 for lost remuneration, $30,000 in compensation, and $12,000 in costs to the authority.

Jacobsen accused RHOT of unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal after she felt forced to resign in May 2023, years after she was hired in March 2020 to address issues of poor workplace culture within the organisation.

Employment dispute

As heard by the ERA, Jacobsen raised her complaints against two members of the RHOT senior leadership team, who had their own complaints against the former CEO of the organisation.

The complaints did not receive a response for five months, according to Jacobsen. But when one of those senior leaders raised a complaint against her, she was immediately suspended and ordered to attend a meeting in two days.

The board attributed her suspension to health and safety concerns due to the nature of the senior leader's complaint, which alleged that Jacobsen was allegedly bullying, harassing, and undermining him.

Jacobsen's email access from the organisation was also cut off, and soon after, the senior leader who filed a complaint against her took her position.

According to Jacobsen, this meant the senior leader had access to emails, information, and other files pertaining to him and relevant to the investigation against her. She said this was inappropriate and showed "bias and pre-determination by the Board in relation to the complaint."

The board defended the appointment by saying it was an opportunity for the senior leader to "prove himself," as heard by the ERA.

Later, the board told Jacobsen that it was engaging a firm of solicitors to appoint an investigator and carry out the probe.

However, the suspended employee said that there was a "lack of response and updates" regarding the complaint against her and the investigation terms of reference from her employer, prompting her to resign.

'Difficult to understand'

In its decision, the ERA said it was "difficult to understand" why RHOT failed to provide any information despite multiple requests from Jacobsen, especially when the organisation engaged a specialist employment legal firm.

"I accept that RHOT was experiencing difficulty identifying and engaging an investigator, however that does not explain why it did not communicate that fact to Ms. Jacobsen. Instead, she was left on suspension with no update which would have been stressful and frustrating for her," the ERA said.

According to the authority, an employer acting in good faith would have contacted Jacobsen to provide a response informing her of the reason for the delay in providing the draft terms of reference.

"Extraordinarily but perhaps consistently, RHOT did not contact her to ask her to reconsider [her resignation], or provide advice on when the investigation would commence," the ERA said. "It merely acknowledged her resignation in an email to her lawyer by giving an indication of her final pay."

It ruled that Jacobsen's resignation was a result of a breach of the duty of good faith on RHOT's part.

"This breach was serious, and I find it was clearly foreseeable in the circumstances that a continuation of that situation would result in Ms. Jacobsen's resignation," the ERA said. 

"Her own situation was one in which she had been informed that there would be an investigation, but two months later she had not been provided despite multiple requests with requested documents, or advised at what stage the investigation was likely to commence."

This is the second time this year that the RHOT was penalised by the ERA, after it was ordered to pay a $36,000 award to a former personal assistant who was unjustifiably disadvantaged at work.