Long-serving worker wins case over flawed dismissal process
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case where a long-serving professional argued that his employer failed to follow proper dismissal procedures.
The worker, who had 28 years of experience in his field, challenged both the grounds for his dismissal and the way it was handled, particularly noting how the employer's stance shifted from suggesting performance management to outright dismissal.
The case raised significant questions about how employers should handle performance issues, the importance of clear communication in disciplinary processes, and the weight that should be given to an employee's long service record when addressing workplace concerns.
The worker had been employed at the veterinary practice since 2010, following the practice's purchase by the new director.
Throughout his employment, he consistently met performance and revenue targets, though there were ongoing differences in professional approaches between him and the director.
These differences mainly centred on diagnostic testing protocols and client care philosophy. The director emphasised comprehensive diagnostic testing, including blood tests and x-rays, particularly for non-symptomatic conditions. Meanwhile, the worker expressed concerns about the financial impact of extensive testing on clients.
The situation came to a head when three separate incidents occurred between December 2021 and February 2022, involving client complaints about treatment approaches and diagnostic decisions.
The initial communication from the business manager indicated these were performance concerns that might lead to a performance improvement plan.
However, when the director became more directly involved, the matter escalated significantly to a serious misconduct investigation.
The ERA noted this crucial shift, stating: "[The employer] did not properly raise the concerns it had with [the worker]. The letter dated 5 April 2022 sets out a list of 11 allegations which were described as either gross negligence or serious misconduct, including issues raised by the insurer and the role of Bestcare® that were never mentioned in the initiating letter."
This change in approach happened without proper notice to the worker, creating what the ERA described as "a fundamental lack of fairness."
The director claimed that the worker's actions demonstrated "a significant professional omission" in one case, and took a "zero tolerance" stance on what he viewed as animal welfare issues in another. However, the ERA noted that expert evidence later contradicted some of these interpretations.
The complaints involved three separate incidents: a missed diagnosis of a rare condition, complications during a euthanasia procedure, and a delayed diagnosis. The director argued these showed a pattern of gross negligence, despite the worker's previously unblemished record.
The ERA found that "none of his actions constituted misconduct or serious misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal," particularly given the worker's long service record and previously positive performance reviews.
The ERA's examination revealed several procedural failures in how the employer handled the situation. They found the employer "did not sufficiently investigate the allegations" and failed to properly raise their concerns with the worker.
The ERA emphasised that while some actions might have "fallen short of best practice," this did not justify the procedural flaws in the dismissal process. The decision stated: "Taking all these matters into consideration, my view is that [the employer's] actions did not meet the test of justification."
As a result, the ERA ordered the employer to pay $8,238.47 for lost remuneration and $27,000 for hurt and humiliation, reflecting both the financial and personal impact of the unjustified dismissal.
