Employee fired after complaints of sleeping at work, tardiness, inappropriate behaviour
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ruled against granting interim reinstatement to a former employee of the Inland Revenue Department (IR) who was dismissed in September 2024.
The employee in this case, who has name suppression, began her employment with IR in March 2023 as a Workplace Support staff member.
Early in her tenure, concerns arose regarding her punctuality, professionalism, and work habits. Reports from her supervisors highlighted repeated issues, including habitual lateness, falling asleep at her desk, and a failure to meet basic workplace expectations.
Despite a series of coaching sessions and a detailed performance plan, which included clear expectations regarding attendance and professional conduct, the employee's behaviour did not improve consistently.
By September 2024, the IR had raised multiple formal concerns about her "high number of leave days, being found asleep at work, gaps in the system around leave, losing two cell phones, behaving inappropriately at work and ongoing lateness."
According to the Domain Lead's letter to the former employee in that same month: "I am concerned that the employment relationship has become frustrated due to your ongoing history of absences, poor time management and several inappropriate behaviours at workplace. I also consider that you are not making yourself ready, willing and available to attend work on a regular basis."
The IR asked to meet the employee to hear alternatives to dismissal, but the employee's representatives asked to delay the meeting and argued that the process should be suspended so the department could have the benefit of obtaining medical information about DQJ's condition and how it impacted her work.
But the IRD responded with a decision to terminate the employee on notice.
"I consider that the employment relationship has become frustrated due to your ongoing history of absences, poor time management and several inappropriate behaviours at the workplace," the letter read.
"Ultimately, based on all the information available to me, I consider that calling a halt to the employment relationship, on a no faults basis, is appropriate given all the circumstances."
The ERA's investigation focused on whether the former employee should be reinstated to her position at IRD on an interim basis until the full investigation into her dismissal could be completed.
It concluded that while there was a legitimate question as to whether the employee's dismissal was unjustified, the risks associated with interim reinstatement were too great to justify returning her to the workplace at this stage.
"Concerns about the health and safety of other staff play a significant role in my consideration of the balance of convenience and in my view weigh heavily against interim reinstatement," the ERA ruled.
The ERA also noted that the employee's behaviour pre- and post-dismissal, including hostile messages sent to her team lead and colleagues, raised further concerns about her ability to reintegrate into the work environment successfully.
"It is likely the issues [the employee] and IR faced during their employment relationship will continue in light of what the report says," the ERA said.
"Given the difficulties already experienced in managing these issues, it could not be said with confidence at this interim stage that reinstatement is practicable and reasonable."
The ERA has scheduled another hearing for the new year to investigate the employee's dismissal.
