Your home for all things consulting, accounting and legal.
It is easy for employers to fall into a trap of considering that their reasons for issuing a warning or terminating an employee, justify getting to an outcome, regardless of the process followed. Perhaps a manager will consider a process as “red tape” that doesn’t help them get the business outcomes they want.
From the employer’s point of view the employee may have:
As frustrations boil up, the employer then takes action based on their perception of the situation. If these concerns regarding the employee are genuine, many other business owners or managers could empathise with the decision to just take action, resulting in a negative consequence for the employee. However, the foundation of employment legislation in New Zealand requires employers to be fair and reasonable, and this is measured not just on the genuineness of concerns, but also the process involved in determining that genuineness.
Where there is potential poor performance, an employer has the obligation to provide timely and regular feedback, and support for improvement. Where there is potential misconduct, an employer has the obligation to set clear expectations and hold a consistent standard with all workers. Following this, there is a formal process to raise concerns with an employee by inviting them to attend a meeting, where they enter knowing the specific concerns they will be asked to respond to. In addition, they have the opportunity to bring a support person or legal representative.
Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out the Test of Justification. This outlines the objective basis on which a dismissal or other action is determined justifiable, being what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time. The Employment Relations Authority must consider under Section 103A(3):
In a recent publicised case, the ERA took a hard-line with an employer, whose focus was more on what they considered the impact that an employee was making in the workplace and therefore delivering a consequence to that employee (termination of employment), rather than the process they followed to manage that situation. As a result they awarded that employee 6 months of lost wages valued at $65,000, $30,000 for hurt and humiliation, and also imposed a penalty fine of $3000 dollars against the company.
It shows us that even larger organisations with the ability to access the right expertise, can make decisions that are not viewed favourably by the ERA.
This is an opportunity, for us as leaders and managers, not to point fingers, but to reflect on whether we could end up in a similar situation given some of the actions we have might have taken.
The questions to ask ourselves are, “where are we exposed by a lack of procedure or, possibly understanding, potentially due to our own closeness to the situation?” and “when should we step back and seek a trusted third-party opinion, internally or externally?”.
We also need to think about our actions from the point of ourself or a loved one as the employee. Wouldn’t you want to be told what the expectations are, where you are in comparison to them, and given the opportunity to improve? Consider it then, from a viewpoint of other employees who observe interactions in the workplace, because little often remains 100% confidential e.g.:
Employment legislation and case precedent should be factored in decision making, especially when the danger of a lack of due process can have wider implications. Balancing process and substance both form part of sound business decision making.
To hear more, fill in the form below to download our 'Guide to Termination of Employment'
© 2017 K3 - Consulting, Accounting & Legal
+64 09 366 1366
83 Albert Street
+64 09 366 1366
83 Albert Street
© 2018 K3 - Consulting, Accounting & Legal