‘Unjustified’ sacking of worker to cost Fonterra $40,000
A text message alleging “concern” about the nature of an employee’s sick leave escalated into a heated argument that cost one man his job and has now cost Fonterra close to $40,000, after it was found it had unjustifiably dismissed him.
Steve Waite was employed by Fonterra Brands (New Zealand) Ltd as a production supervisor and had worked for Fonterra for 27 years when the incident with his manager led to his dismissal for serious misconduct in May, 2022.
The dismissal came nearly three months after he was suspended pending an investigation into the incident where his behaviour was alleged to be “endangering his manager’s health, safety and wellbeing”.
Following an investigation meeting in New Plymouth in February, a 23-page Employment Relations Authority ( ERA) decision released earlier this month found Fonterra was not justified in dismissing Waite and ordered it to pay him nearly $40,000.
Waite will receive $20,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings and $19,211 for three months of lost wages following his dismissal.
The findings of the ERA investigation by member Natasha Szeto were released nearly two-and-a-half years after the text message that set off the chain of events was sent.
The investigation found Waite had been away from work on sick leave on January 31, 2022, but his manager suspected it was part of a wider planned absence to disrupt production.
The manager raised their concerns with their “two up” manager, who then raised it with Fonterra’s employment relations team who provided Waite’s manager with content for a text message.
The 101-word message, sent to three absent employees, stated the manager was concerned the person had been unable to attend their shift.
“We have experienced a high degree of unplanned absence from your shift group today. This does give us cause for concern in light of some information the company has, suggesting that this may have been pre-planned,” it said.
Waite, who had called in sick with vomiting and diarrhoea, was upset by this message, and another one which said he would have to provide a medical certificate when he got back.
He took February 1 off sick, then had rostered days off, and a public holiday, returning to work on February 8.
By that time Fonterra had decided to pay all the absent employees for their time away from work and did not require Waite to provide a medical certificate.
But Waite remained upset about the January 31 text message, specifically around who “formatted” it. The discussion with his manager became heated and both raised their voices.
The manager left the office, slamming the door. She described Waite’s demeanour in the officer as “threatening and aggressive” and that his tone had made her feel “extremely bullied and intimidated”.
The manager discussed the incident with another manager. A more senior manager decided the next day the incident needed to be investigated, and Waite suspended while that investigation was carried out.
Following the investigation, Waite was dismissed for serious misconduct on May 6, 2022.
Fonterra said there had been no demonstration of accountability by Waite, who showed a lack of awareness or insight into his conduct.
In evidence for his dismissal, the company said it had no assurance there would not be a repeat incident, which was a “health and safety risk that would present at other plants or work sites”.
However the ERA found Fonterra’s investigation insufficient and that Waite’s alleged behaviour, which was later categorised as aggressive and intimidatory to the level of undermining or endangering his manager’s health, safety and wellbeing “became exaggerated by Fonterra throughout the process”.
Szeto was also not persuaded the company had genuinely considered alternatives to dismissal.
She said there was no evidence of previous issues, and there was no pattern of behaviour.
Based on the evidence before the Authority, she said there was no reliable information “on which a fair and reasonable employer could rely” to support the view that Waite presented an ongoing health and safety risk to his manager and others.
“I conclude in all the circumstances, Fonterra did not act as a fair and reasonable employer could, and Mr Waite was unjustifiably dismissed,” Szeto wrote.