ERA awards $20,000, points out procedural flaws in dismissal
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has awarded a former RSPCA employee $20,000 after ruling that her dismissal was unjustified.
The employee, who had been employed by the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) for over five years, was dismissed for serious misconduct after being accused of failing to administer and record treatments for animals in her care.
The allegations included missing important doses of flea and worm treatments and failing to administer prescribed medication to a dog, leading to prolonged recovery and pain.
The RSPCA argued that this behaviour amounted to a serious breach of trust and confidence, justifying her dismissal.
However, the employee disputed the dismissal, arguing that the accusations were unfounded and the process leading to her termination was procedurally unfair.
She claimed that the RSPCA raised multiple unsubstantiated allegations during the disciplinary process and that her explanations were not given proper consideration.
In addition, she pointed to a lack of clarity surrounding key details, such as the administration of medication and the process for recording treatments.
After exhausting internal channels, the employee submitted a personal grievance claim to the ERA, arguing that her dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unjustified.
In its decision, the ERA found that the RSPCA had not conducted a fair and thorough investigation into the allegations.
It criticised the organisation for failing to provide the employee with a full list of missed treatments in a timely manner, which hindered her ability to adequately respond to the accusations.
The ERA also noted that the RSPCA did not properly investigate the second, more serious allegation — failing to administer prescribed medication to a dog.
The Authority found that key information, such as the timeline of when medication was prescribed and who was responsible for its administration, had not been adequately verified.
The ERA also pointed to the RSPCA's reliance on the employee's initial admission during a preliminary meeting, rather than considering her later clarifications and explanations during the formal disciplinary process.
The Authority found that the RSPCA placed undue weight on these preliminary responses and failed to give full consideration to the employee's explanations, thus depriving her of a fair opportunity to address the concerns raised.
In addition, the ERA identified several other procedural flaws, such as failing to provide the employee with sufficient information to respond to the allegations and failing to investigate key aspects of the case, such as the vet's notes and the delivery of medication to the employee's desk.
These errors contributed to the decision to dismiss the employee, making it unjustifiable in the circumstances.
As a result of the unjustified dismissal, the ERA awarded the employee $20,000 in compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings. Additionally, the employee was awarded $9,192.74 in lost wages for the period following her dismissal, after demonstrating that she had suffered both emotional and financial harm.