Injured worker cries unjust dismissal after being unaware his job was 'at risk'

The Employment Relations Authority in Wellington recently dealt with a worker’s claim who alleged that he was unjustly dismissed and disadvantaged after he was fired without notice.

Alan Burt filed a case against his employer, Tawaroa Farming Limited (Tawaroa). Burt was employed as a fencer by Tawaroa and encountered a significant setback when he sustained a severe shoulder injury while on duty. This injury rendered him unable to continue his work, eventually leading to the termination of his employment.

The investigation delved into written statements from Burt and his son, along with in-person testimony from Tawaroa's representative, "Mr. Marjoribanks."

Tawaroa's financial challenges in the past underscored the significance of his role in securing necessary improvements for the farm's operations.

Termination caused worker’s hardships

Following Burt's workplace injury, a series of events transpired, culminating in his sudden termination. Despite his diligent service and successful track record, Burt found himself facing unemployment due to his incapacity.

The investigation delved into the decision-making process leading to Burt's dismissal. It scrutinized whether Tawaroa adequately explored alternatives, communicated concerns, and provided Burt with a fair opportunity to respond before taking decisive action.

Marjoribanks provided insights into the employer's decision-making process, revealing that management was tasked with obtaining medical documentation from Burt regarding his ability to return to work. Despite Burt's efforts to communicate his medical situation, the employer had already decided to terminate his employment unless he could resume work immediately.

Communication between management and Burt regarding the termination of employment was primarily through text messages, with the latter being informed about the end of his employment and the need to vacate company housing.

The abrupt notification left Burt in a difficult situation, struggling to find alternative accommodation amidst the pressure to relocate.

Injury as a valid dismissal ground

The Authority said that “long-term incapacity due to injury or sickness may provide good reason for an employer to bring the employment relationship to an end.”

“An employer is not required to hold a job open indefinitely, or for an unreasonably long amount of time depending on the needs of the business. The courts accept that after a certain point, an employer may ‘fairly cry halt,’ and terminate the employment relationship,” it added.

However, it found that “Tawaroa did not sufficiently investigate the concerns it had about the possible duration of Burt’s injury, how long it might realistically take him to recover, or its view that it needed a person to complete fencing work and no other tasks could have been performed by Burt while he recuperated.”

“When making the decision to have [the management] dismiss Burt if Burt was not ready and able to work by about 4 July 2022, the trustees never spoke with Burt at all.”

“He was never asked to provide a detailed diagnosis or prognosis to enable the trustees to assess whether his job could have been kept open or if he could realistically perform other tasks. Burt simply provided the medical certificate prepared by his GP and updated his manager as best he could as information became available to him.”

‘Job at risk’

The Authority said that “no one ever mentioned to him that his job was at least partially dependent on the information he was providing or gave him the opportunity to provide more and better information.”

“Tawaroa did not raise any of the concerns it had about Burt’s employment with him before deciding to dismiss. In fact, the trustees never communicated to Burt prior to his dismissal on 4 July 2022 that his job was at risk.”

After a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, it was concluded that Tawaroa's dismissal of Burt did not meet the criteria for justification. Consequently, Burt was deemed to have been unjustifiably dismissed and entitled to remedies to address the repercussions of this wrongful termination.