ERA disagreed with HR manager's claim that dismissal 'procedurally flawed'
An HR manager fired for harassing a junior employee on LinkedIn has failed to convince the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that he was unjustifiably dismissed by his employer.
The HR manager was hired by a New Zealand manufacturing firm from July 2020 until January 2023, when he was summarily dismissed.
He was fired after an internal investigation revealed that he harassed a junior employee of the manufacturing firm's parent company in Australia.
The harassment issue stems from the HR manager's messages to the junior employee on LinkedIn, which the latter said began making her uncomfortable after a few months of exchanging messages.
An investigation at the parent company in Australia was held, where the employee disclosed that she and the HR manager in New Zealand initially began with "very basic" communication before eventually trading banter.
However, the employee also said that the HR manager began asking personal questions including: "I know you have a boyfriend – but if you didn't, would it be different between us?"
According to the employee, the HR manager also told her that it would be "good" for their relationship if she left the company.
"I said why? He said you know, with my position and all that," the employee told the investigator, as heard by the ERA.
In another instance, the employee also said that she shared a photo of her when she was younger to the HR manager, who responded with: "cutie."
The HR manager also asked if she was "active," before adding that he was "always into girls from a very young age," according to the employee's recollection of their conversations.
Despite later asking for personal space, the employee's LinkedIn message log revealed that the HR manager continued sending her updates about his personal life. And in late October, the employee asked the HR manager to stop contacting her on LinkedIn because she felt harassed, with the senior employee replying with "noted."
The HR manager was informed about the complaint in November 17, when he received a letter containing allegations of harassment, as well as a summary that said his messages with the employee were "inappropriate, unprofessional, and of sexual nature."
The day after, the HR manager emailed a "lengthy response" to the allegations, where he said the nature of his relationship with the employee was "friendship."
He also disputed the assumption that calling the employee's photo a "cutie" meant it was supposed to be romantic. He further defended that he only meant to ask if the employee was active on dating when he asked her if she was "active."
The HR manager also argued that the employee could have blocked him on LinkedIn at the first sign of discomfort but didn't do so.
According to the HR manager, he was aware of his position of the company and exercised "extreme caution" in his non-work friendship with the employee. He added that he was under the impression that the employee had no concerns about the power imbalance between them.
His wife also provided a written statement during the investigation, where she said she was aware about her husband's connection with the employee.
She affirmed that him saying "cute" did not carry a particular weight and that her husband "uses it all the time about all sorts of things."
The HR manager further wrote to the investigator in the following days, where he stressed that he took the matter "very seriously."
By January, however, his boss in New Zealand decided to terminate him for "not upholding professional integrity" in his connection with the employee.
His persistence in messaging the employee despite her asking for space also "amounted to harassment," according to his boss, who agreed with the investigator's findings.
"This behaviour breached the provision in your employment agreement that requires you to act professionally and at all times comply with all Group and Company policies," the termination letter read.
The HR manager raised the matter to the ERA, where he argued that the investigation and the disciplinary process were "procedurally flawed."
The ERA, however, sided with his employer. It pointed out that the HR manager was informed of the allegations against him and was given time to respond. He was also able to speak at length about the allegations and his responses were "genuinely considered" before the decision to dismiss him.
"While there were defects in the process followed, some were minor, and others did not result in [the HR manager] being treated unfairly," the ERA said in its ruling.
