Former manager wins $140k in unjustifiable dismissal

Published 11 April 2023 | 2 min read

Employee not given a chance to defend herself from the 'real basis' of removal, court says.

A former manager working for the South Waikato Achievement Trust (SWAT) in New Zealand, Virginia Henry, won over $140,000 after being unjustifiably dismissed by her employer. Henry was employed by SWAT for 18 years and was promoted to a managerial position in 2017. However, she was dismissed after a SWAT investigation found that she had not acted promptly and properly in dealing with a verbal report of physical mistreatment of a disabled resident in SWAT accommodation. Henry raised two grievances to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), but they ruled in favour of SWAT, saying that their actions were within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer. Henry appealed the ERA's decision to the Employment Court, which ruled in her favour, saying that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed.

This case highlights the importance of due process in employment termination. Employers must provide their employees with a clear and proper basis for their decision to terminate their employment. Furthermore, employees must be given an opportunity to address the basis for their dismissal.

While due process is essential in any employment termination, employers must also ensure that they have a legitimate and valid reason for dismissing their employees. Employers must be able to demonstrate that the decision to terminate employment was reasonable and within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances at the time.

In the past, employers had a greater degree of autonomy in dismissing their employees. However, employment laws have evolved to provide greater protection for employees against unfair and unjustified dismissals. Today, employers must follow strict procedures when dismissing employees, and employees have the right to challenge their dismissal if they believe it was unfair or unjustified.

ERA Decision:

• The South Waikato Achievement Trust (SWAT) was within its rights to dismiss Virginia Henry from her position as 2IC Residential Co-ordinator.
• SWAT's actions in investigating Henry's conduct and in coming to the decision to dismiss her were "within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances at the time."
• Henry's claims of personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal were declined.
• Henry was ordered to pay $14,000 as a contribution to the costs of representation incurred by SWAT during the legal process.

Employment Court Decision:

• Virginia Henry was unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed by SWAT.
• SWAT did not adequately disclose to Henry the reasons for her dismissal, and there was no proper basis for reaching that decision.
• Henry was removed from her workplace due to her bad temper, a reason which SWAT did not give to her.
• Henry was deprived of an opportunity to address what appears to have been the real basis for her suspension, Mr Ensor's concern about her alleged temper.
• Henry was entitled to compensation for lost remuneration, special damages, and compensation for loss of dignity worth $35,000.
• SWAT was ordered to pay Henry lost remuneration of over $52,000, special damages worth over $8,000, and compensation for loss of dignity worth $35,000.
• SWAT was also ordered to pay Henry over $32,000 for taking her appeal to the court, $14,000 for costs in defending her case before the ERA, and over $1,900 in disbursements.