Case sheds light on errors made by employer during lockdown reforms
A magazine publisher was ordered by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to pay a former employee a total of $23,000, following her role's disestablishment during the company's restructuring amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case stems from the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, when the publisher concluded that it needed to change the structure of its business, the ERA heard. For this restructure, the former employee's role - described in the proposal as advertising designer - would be disestablished with the creation of a new marketing graphic designer role.
The authority heard that the former employee was "confident" that she could undertake the new role based on her previous performance and the criteria she was given. However, she believed that her employer "did not appear engaged" during her presentation and did not ask questions.
Following the meeting, the former employee went on a sick leave citing stress, read the ERA's document, and did not return to work before her employment was terminated. The ERA heard that the publisher's restructuring was pushed through, and the former employee's role was disestablished as a result, with her termination coming days after.
Read more: Driver to receive thousands in compensation for unjustified dismissal
The employee's then-advocate raised concerns that the new role of marketing graphic designer was "very similar" to the previous role of the employee, a remark which the employer disagreed. The company, as per the ERA document, said the new role was "fundamentally different" and that the former employee lacked the skills, knowledge, or abilities on several of the role's critical requirements.
The new marketing graphic designer role was later advertised as a vacant role, with the terminated employee not applying for it. By November, the former employee raised a personal grievance with the ERA.
Read more: Are delivery drivers actually employees? Court rules on landmark case
ERA Member Helen Doyle, in her decision, found that the disestablishment of the former employee's role was "substantively justified." However, she also concluded that the process was "unfair and not in a minor way in two key aspects." She added that not all the communication by the employer to the former employee while she was in a sick leave was fair and reasonable.
Doyle said that she has "not gone so far as to conclude" that the company is required to offer the former employee redeployment in the new role created from restructuring, but she is entitled to remedies after suffering from an "unjustified disadvantage."
For compensation, the company was ordered to pay the former employee a sum of $5,016 as reimbursement of lost wages, in addition to $18,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
