Employer says it needed to maintain control for security reasons
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case where a worker sought to challenge her dismissal and raise concerns about workplace bullying and institutional racism.
The worker argued that she faced unfair treatment in accessing her workplace and claimed her dismissal was unjustified.
This case brought to light important considerations about timing requirements for raising personal grievances and the proper procedures for identifying employers in legal proceedings.
The worker was employed by Te Taha Māori (TTM), a Connexional Committee of the Methodist Church of New Zealand.
TTM operated under Section 6 of the Methodist Church Laws, which were recognised by the Methodist Church of New Zealand Act 1911.
In September 2019, significant changes occurred when a commissioner was appointed to oversee TTM until a new governing committee could be established. This appointment came during a period of organisational transition.
The employment relationship ended abruptly on 10 December 2019, when the worker received an early morning email at 5:50 am terminating her employment.
Worker complains about workplace issues
Before the dismissal, tensions had emerged regarding workplace access. The evidence showed that the worker had raised concerns with the commissioner about TTM staff not having their own keys to the offices.
Instead, they relied on a church administrator who held the keys and was sometimes late to open the doors.
The commissioner explained in evidence that he needed to maintain control over access for security purposes. He noted that while the administrator worked full-time, the worker was part-time, which influenced the access arrangements.
As stated in the decision: "[The worker] told [the administrator] she was not happy, who told [the worker] to take it up with [the commissioner]."
On 8 March 2020, the worker took formal action by sending a letter raising personal grievances about her dismissal. The ERA noted: "[The worker] raised a personal grievance in relation to her dismissal with [the commissioner] of TTM, by letter dated 8 March 2020.
The letter also said [the worker] had a personal grievance in relation to 'workplace bullying' and 'institutional racism' without providing any detail in relation to the allegations."
The employer's lawyer responded the following month, rejecting the unjustified dismissal claim and arguing that any grievances about bullying and institutional racism were out of time unless they specifically related to events immediately before the dismissal.
A critical development occurred in February 2023 when the worker filed her formal statement. Although she initially named a trustee company as the respondent, the ERA observed:
"In the body of the statement of problem TTM was named as [the worker's] employer throughout. The employment relationship problem and facts pleaded clearly identified TTM as employer."
In August 2023, the worker provided more detailed allegations, stating that the church administrator "was late most days, and, on many occasions, I had to work in the kitchen area until she arrived."
She also mentioned that when the administrator was absent, Tongan Methodist Mission members would open the TTM offices.
The ERA's analysis focused heavily on timing requirements and procedural matters. They found that the worker hadn't effectively raised her workplace bullying grievance within the required timeframe, stating:
"[The worker's] letter uses the phrase 'workplace bullying' but makes no reference to [the worker] being locked out of TTM's offices. It was not effective in raising alleged workplace bullying."
The final decision included several key points. The ERA ruled: "Leave is not granted to raise personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage based on [the worker's] claims of workplace bullying or institutional racism."
However, regarding the procedural issue of employer identification, the ERA determined: "Given the above unusual circumstances, the substantial merits and equities of this case warrant the exercise of the power under s 221(b) such that the error or defect of [the trustee company] being named as the respondent on the front page of the statement of problem ought to be waived."
The ERA scheduled further proceedings to address the remaining issues through a substantive investigation meeting.
