Employment Court Reinstates Worker Dismissed for Personal Issues

An Inland Revenue employee, who was dismissed for sleeping at work, being late, and mistreating colleagues, is back on the payroll. The Employment Court decided that her personal issues, including PTSD, were not fully considered before she was dismissed. She will stay on the payroll until a full Employment Relations Authority (ERA) hearing in April.

This comes after the employee challenged the initial ERA decision that denied her interim reinstatement.

The employee started working at Inland Revenue in March 2023 and quickly ran into problems. She was often late, wore inappropriate clothes, made personal calls during work, didn’t finish tasks, and even fell asleep at her desk multiple times. Her behavior was causing her managers significant stress, with one even thinking about resigning as a result.

The issues persisted despite over a year of attempts (both formal and informal) to address the employee’s behaviour, and IRD subsequently dismissed her. After being dismissed in September 2023, the employee raised a personal grievance claiming she was unfairly dismissed and asked to be reinstated temporarily. The ERA declined this request. However, the employee appealed the decision and took her case to the Employment Court. Chief Judge Christina Inglis looked at statements from her manager and colleagues, which revealed she had a history of traumatic personal experiences that influenced her work behavior.

A psychologist diagnosed the employee with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, which made it hard for her to focus and handle stress. The psychologist argued that she shouldn’t be punished for her trauma and needed more support.

Judge Inglis found that there was a case for unfair dismissal and possibly bringing her back permanently. She pointed out that Inland Revenue didn’t wait for a medical report before dismissing the employee, even though they knew about her personal issues. The judge suggested that a warning might have been a better option.

The Court decided to put the employee back on the payroll temporarily so she could get the support and medical help she needed before the full hearing. This decision is intended to provide the employee with an opportunity for a successful return to work, if ordered by the Employment Relations Authority following the full hearing.

This case shows how important it is to consider employees’ personal and mental health issues when making employment decisions. Employers need to follow the right procedures and offer enough support before deciding to dismiss someone. The Court’s decision highlights the need for a fair approach that balances employee well-being with workplace standards.