Employer says decision to take employee off court duty 'predetermined'
A youth worker has won $12,000 after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Oranga Tamariki when it was investigating a complaint against her.
Dahlea Reisima was employed at Te Au rere a te Tonga Youth Justice Residence in Palmerston North on a casual basis in February 2007, before she became a permanent employee starting in November 2012.
The employment dispute began when Reisima had escorted a young person at the Napier Court in June 2020 and spoke on his behalf. According to the ERA document, an employee at the Napier Court told Oranga Tamariki that Reisima interfered with the court process for speaking to the judge despite not having authority and not being invited to speak.
Reisima was then invited to a meeting with her team leader with other senior managers, without prior warning and without a support person for her, despite the worker asking if she could bring one.
During the meeting, Reisima said she was accused of "singlehandedly ruining the relationship between the Napier Court and Oranga Tamariki."
She was then told that she would not be given court escorts duty until they were satisfied that she understood the issue and what was expected of her while in court.
Oranga Tamariki's defence
But Oranga Tamariki denied accusing Reisima of "singlehandedly ruining the relationship, according to the ERA. The employer also defended the move to take Reisima off court escort duties as a "safeguard" and not a sanction.
"Oranga Tamariki submitted the process and decision were not disciplinary and were solely about keeping Ms Reisima safe and away from the Court," the ERA document read.
The Oranga Tamarika also told the ERA that their approach was "low-level" and was consistent with the Collective Employment Agreement and the organisation's Disciplinary Policy.
Unjustifiably disadvantaged ruling
The ERA, however, sided with Reisima in the case.
"I disagree. This was not a low level or reasonable process. I find that from Ms Reisima's point of view, she was subject to an unfair disciplinary process," Authority Member Andrew Gane said in the decision.
Gane pointed out that Reisima was not given a warning ahead of the meeting with senior members and was also not given a support person to be with her during that time. He also noted one of the team leader's admission that the decision to take Reisima off escort duty was "predetermined" before the meeting with her.
"I find that Ms Reisima was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Oranga Tamariki's investigation process into the complaint," Gane said.
As a result, Oranga Tamariki has been ordered to pay Reisima $12,000 in satisfaction of the grievance.
Other accusations from Reisima
Reisima also raised concerns over Oranga Tamariki's management on her return to work in January 2021 and that she was subjected to bullying behaviour by members of the management team in April 2022.
But the ERA dismissed that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged in these claims, citing that her evidence did not substantiate the allegations.
The ERA also dismissed other unjustified disadvantage claims from Reisima over her concerns about removal of paid sick leave, annual leave, request of medical certificates, privacy breaches, medical retirement, among others.
On other accusations from Reisima, such as getting constantly ignored and excluded from activities related to her role, the ERA said they were raised outside the statutory 90-day period.
