Authority orders employee reinstated after suspension…

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has recently accepted a employee’s application for interim reinstatement after she was suspended pending a workplace investigation.

The employee had worked as the head of the organisation for 14 years. The? Board undertook a disciplinary investigation as a result of “disharmony” in “management and governance.”

A Commissioner was later appointed in place of the Board. The investigation provided critical comments on the employee’s leadership. The employee undertook training to solve these issues.

While on sabbatical, further concerns were raised about the employee. She was then suspended by the Commissioner, pending an investigation into the concerns.

The employee applied to the ERA for interim reinstatement.

The Authority had to consider:

1.??? Whether the employee had an arguable case for unjustified disadvantage and permanent reinstatement;

2.??? Where the balance of convenience lay; and

3.??? Where the overall justice of the case lay while the disciplinary process was being resolved.

The ERA first considered whether the employee had an arguable case of unjustified disadvantage. The Authority considered that the employer had arguably not complied with the suspension requirements under the employee’s employment agreement. This included a lack of inquiry by the employer.

The employer had also failed to follow the necessary process for dealing with health and safety concerns, which were one of the concerns raised against the employee. Therefore, the suspension was arguably unlawful, and the employee had an arguable case of unjustified disadvantage.

The ERA then considered whether it was feasible or practicable to order reinstatement. This required considering whether appropriate measures could be implemented if the employee worked while the disciplinary process was undertaken.

The employee stated that she was supportive of the disciplinary process and would be willing to work even in a limited capacity. The ERA did not find any evidence that the disciplinary process concerned protected disclosures or serious misconduct.

The ERA also considered that the employee had worked at for the employer ?for 14 years, and she had previously cooperated with the employer to improve her practice when concerns had been raised. Therefore, the employee had an arguable case for reinstatement.

The ERA also concluded that the employee could not be adequately compensated by damages, given the reputational harm she suffered as a result of the suspension. The balance of convenience therefore lay with interim reinstatement being allowed.

Finally, the ERA held that the overall justice of the case supported upholding the employer’s obligations under the employment agreement. As the suspension was arguably unlawful, this supported interim reinstatement.

The ERA ultimately accepted the? application for interim reinstatement and ordered that the suspension be lifted immediately.