The former employee said it would take RBNZ 'to the cleaners' for attempting constructively dismiss her
A former payments and clearance officer at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has lost her case of unjustified disadvantage at the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
The ERA said the RBNZ had been a "fair and reasonable employer" for making the officer serve her last four weeks of employment on paid leave after she became confrontational to colleagues as a result of a failed job application in another organisation.
"Objectively assessed, having YFR serve the last four weeks of her employment on paid leave was not an unjustified disadvantage," the ERA said. "Rather it was support for her wellbeing and job search that was within the range of responses that a fair and reasonable employer could have taken in all the circumstances at the time."
The employment dispute came after the former payments and clearance officer, who was under fixed-term employment, got rejected for a job that she planned on taking after her term at the RBNZ.
She believed the rejection was because of the "negative comments" given by another colleague and RBNZ team leader Renee Comis during the other organisation's reference checks.
Under this belief, the officer then accused Comis of "backstabbing" her in a series of messages she sent to the team leader and her colleague.
"Why would I talk to the person that stabbed me in the back? You stabbed me in the back and you know that," the employee told Comis after she attempted to arrange a conversation with her.
She then travelled to Wellington on August 3 for a "surprise" visit to Comis, who worked from home after learning of the officer's plan.
Later that morning, the officer was met by department manager Jamie Taylor-Burt and senior human resources advisor Erana Tamapeau via audio-visual link, who described the officer as "agitated" and apologetic to her comments to Comis.
According to Tamapeau, the call ended with the officer agreeing to take the remainder of the day and the next day (Friday) on paid leave, with plans to meet again on Monday unless the officer needed more time to seek advice.
Despite both officials saying the officer agreed to the arrangement, the officer went off on the team's group chat accusing RBNZ of attempting to "constructively dismiss" her.
"I don't care anymore I will take RBNZ to the cleaners. Constructive dismissal = bullying an individual into resigning with harassment and intimidation tactics," the officer said on the message. "I'm disgusted. I'm applying for legal aid and I will absolutely take RBNZ to the cleaners at the MBIE or Employment Relations Authority or even as high as the damn Employment Court."
Following the message, RBNZ removed the officer's electronic access to her email, remote working systems, and buildings, attributing the decision to her behaviour and their earlier "unsuccessful attempts" to resolve the situation with her.
The following week, the officer's counsel said the employee reconsidered her position and sought to return to work, but RBNZ did not formally respond to the "on the record" request.
The officer was then left on paid leave until the end of her fixed term employment and accused RBNZ of unjustified disadvantage.
But the ERA ruled that the RBNZ was reasonable throughout the process.
According to the ERA, the organisation "carefully balanced" her interests by arranging to hear from her directly during her surprise visit to the Wellington office, as well as proposing that she take some time off following her behaviour towards Comis.
"On any measure, having YFR take paid leave was a fair and practical 'cooling off' step for all involved," the ERA said.
The RBNZ also had "sound reason" to remove the officer's access to electronic systems and workplace given her "intemperate comments" in messages to colleagues.
On the issue of RBNZ's lack of response to her return-to-work request, the RBNZ said Tamapeau mistakenly thought a further email after the return-to-work request that initiated "without prejudice discussions… superseded the earlier message."
"While Ms Tamapeau's omission may have been a defect in RBNZ's process, it did not amount to an act of unjustified disadvantage unless it resulted in YFR being treated unfairly," the ERA ruled.
