Worker claims health concerns at work led to unjustified dismissal
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a trainee and her employer, where the former argued that she had been unjustifiably dismissed after presenting a medical certificate to her employer.
She claimed that a misunderstanding arose during a brief conversation about her health concerns, leading to an unexpected termination of her employment.
The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the worker had offered to resign during this discussion.
The worker had been employed at a beauty salon for about five months, from October 2022 to March 2023. Her role involved delivering beauty treatments, including massages, while also completing training courses at an external provider.
In mid-March 2023, the worker noticed that some of her fingers had begun to blister and peel from under the nail. She sought medical advice and received a certificate from her doctor on March 22, 2023. The certificate stated:
"[The worker] is getting an allergic reaction to what she thinks is the massage oil used in her workplace- causing her skin to blister and become reddened and irritated."
The doctor recommended that she be excused from massage work while awaiting further investigations.
On March 22, 2023, the worker approached her employer to present the medical certificate.
The conversation took place in a salon client room between the employer's appointments on what was described as a very busy day. The discussion lasted only about 5 to 10 minutes.
The employer and worker had different recollections of this conversation. The employer believed that the worker had offered to resign during this meeting.
However, the worker maintained that she had not resigned and was merely explaining her medical situation.
The ERA noted the context of this conversation, stating:
"I accept that [the employer] had not expected to have the discussion and [the worker] sought her out, waiting until she was free. This all leans towards a rushed conversation. I accept the discussion was only about 5 to 10 minutes."
The day after the conversation, on March 23, 2023, the employer sent a message to the worker, stating:
"Hi,
Thank you for coming in yesterday. Thank you for acknowledging that I may need to get someone else to do your job as you can't do a huge part of it. I have put a lot of thought into it and looked into your future bookings and most of your appointments you will be using the oil. So, I have decided to take your offer and let you go and look for someone else for the job. I will pay you your final pays next week if there is any owing. I wish you all the best in the industry and hope you sort you[sic] hands and wrist soon. Could you please drop your key into which ever clinic suits asap. Your clients are all rescheduled to other therapists.”
This message left the worker confused, as she believed she had not offered to resign. The worker called the employer to clarify the situation, but the employer did not engage in further discussion about the misunderstanding.
After considering the evidence, the ERA determined that the dismissal was unjustified. The Authority said:
"I do not find these words could reasonably have confirmed to an employer that an employee had clearly and unequivocally resigned. [The worker] was employed to work a minimum of 10 hours per week. Her history of working included working more than this, as required. I have no evidence of a variation to say that [the worker] had agreed to work specifically to cover someone else's employment from the end of April 2023. At the very least a fuller discussion was needed for the employer to have better clarified what [the worker] had communicated during this short discussion between clients on a busy day."
The ERA also found that the employer had not acted in good faith:
"I find that [the employer] breached its duty of good faith by not constructively engaging with [the worker] about the potential end of her employment and instead took an opportunity to latch onto words that could not reasonably be construed as an unequivocal resignation offer to end the employment."
The ERA awarded the worker compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, as well as lost wages. The Authority said:
"I find an appropriate award to be $12,000.00."
For lost wages, the ERA awarded:
"Accordingly, I find a fair reimbursement for lost wages is the combination of the above: $848.00 + 333.70 which is $1,181.70 gross for lost wages under s 123(1)(b) and s 128 of the Act."
This case serves as a reminder for employers and HR professionals about the importance of clear communication and proper procedures in employment relationships. It emphasises the need for careful consideration and clarity when dealing with potential resignations or terminations, especially in situations involving employee health concerns.
