'Humiliated' worker challenges suspension order, argues flawed process
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who claimed that his employer's decision to suspend him while investigating a client complaint amounted to an unjustified action that caused him disadvantage in his employment.
The worker was employed as a senior systems engineer at Kinetics Group Limited (KG), an information technology (IT) and cyber security services company. He sought $21,000.00 in compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The case discussed the intricacies of employee suspension and the importance of fair process, and the ERA examined the circumstances surrounding the worker's suspension and its impact on his well-being.
As a senior systems engineer, the worker was responsible for delivering various service delivery levels of on-site services to the employer's clients from January 2022 until he left in mid-June 2023 after giving four weeks' notice.
The employer heavily relied on maintaining strong relationships with its clients to ensure business continuity and growth.
In February 2023, a key client contacted one of the employer's managers and complained about the worker's behaviour and service delivery.
The client expressed concerns about the worker's conduct, including speaking negatively about the employer to the client's staff and not communicating well with them.
The client also mentioned that the worker's alleged behaviour was contributing to the client potentially ending their business relationship with the employer.
On 9 February 2023, the worker was invited to an "urgent" online meeting with two managers. During the meeting, the worker was informed of a "pretty serious customer complaint," and the allegations were put to him "verbatim" from an email sent by one of the managers to the client. The worker became very distressed and cried throughout the meeting.
Following the meeting, the worker was informed via a phone call and a subsequent letter that he was suspended on full pay pending the employer's investigation of the client’s complaint.
The letter stated, "In order to manage this investigation and allow you the appropriate time free from distraction to respond to these allegations, we would like to confirm the suspension proposal discussed with you today."
The worker remained suspended for five working days, after which the employer lifted the suspension. The employer cited concerns about the length of the suspension and the unavailability of the worker's representative for a disciplinary meeting within the expected timeframe as reasons for lifting the suspension.
The worker argued that the employer's decision to suspend him and the procedure used were unjustified and unfairly disadvantaged him in his employment.
He claimed that the suspension caused him significant distress, which continued for the remainder of his employment and beyond.
The worker maintained that he was not given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations and that the employer had already formed a view that the client's complaint was true before speaking with him.
On the other hand, the employer denied the worker's claim, stating that it followed advice about the suspension, had good reason to suspend, and followed a fair process.
The employer argued that the suspension could not have had the alleged effect because it was short, on full pay, and the investigation did not result in any action taken. The employer emphasized the importance of maintaining client relationships and the potential impact of the worker's alleged behaviour on the business.
The ERA found that the employer did not genuinely consult about the suspension and that its concerns about the worker interfering with the investigation were based on a mix of his senior-level access to IT systems and his emotional state during the meeting.
The ERA stated that it was “satisfied that [the employer] did not genuinely consult about the suspension."
The decision highlighted that the employer's actions fell short of those that were justified, and they had an impact on the worker, who was suddenly removed from his senior role in a rapid process with no consultation about alternative options.
The ERA found that the worker was disadvantaged in his employment because of the procedure and the substantive reasoning for the suspension.
The ERA noted, "KG's actions were in circumstances where I accept it sought advice and followed a 'script'. How it implemented any advice or followed a 'script' was a decision made by those carrying out the process.
“While a process does not have to be perfect, a fair and reasonable employer in the circumstances could have reasonably put a 'serious' complaint to an employee with more care, reasonably have stopped a meeting where an employee's reactions were so emotional they likely impeded reliable answers, reasonably have been seen to impeded reliable answers, and then not relied on these minimal answers to form a view that the employee was a high risk in the workplace because of his emotional state in that meeting," it added.
Regarding compensation, the ERA acknowledged the emotional impact on the worker but found that the uncertainty about his continued employment was not long-lived, as he returned to the workplace after five working days and remained on full pay throughout.
The ERA said it “accepted that there would have been an element of humiliation to [the worker] being a senior employee in the workplace and suddenly suspended."
Consequently, the ERA found that a reasonable compensatory award for the worker was $4,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The decision emphasised the importance of fair process and genuine consultation when dealing with employee suspensions, even in the face of client complaints.
The ERA said, "At the very least, an alternative to being expelled from the workplace so suddenly could reasonably have been the one proposed by [the employer] only a short time later being no contact with the client, and a work from home office. These were not discussed and reasonably could have been."
The decision reminded employers to handle employee suspensions with due diligence, ensuring that the process is justified, fair, and considers the well-being of the employee.
