Depressed staffer unfairly dismissed
Waikato University has been slated as ‘‘opportunistic’’ after accepting an emailed resignation from a staff member suffering depression.
The university had been in dispute with Eric Messick who worked as a psychology supervisor at the university for more than a decade.
Within an hour of Messick emailing, the university had accepted his immediate resignation, despite knowing he had depression, the Employment Relations Authority said.
A fair and reasonable employer would not have accepted the May 16 email as resignation without notice, the ERA ruled, awarding Messick $20,000 after finding he was in fact unjustifiably dismissed.
When he returned from a long break, his pre-paid support sessions were cancelled and he raised concerns over his job position and workload.
As a result, Messick received a letter from human resources that alleged he had ‘‘undermined his colleagues, failed to carry out his duties competently, over represented his position within the school (as co-convenor) and changed course content’’.
He was asked to attend a disciplinary meeting, which he declined twice.
Messick received a final warning that said the university found his pattern of behaviour breached its code of conduct by continually undermining the authority of the course and programme convenors.
He finally agreed to meet his manager, Lewis Bizo, and after a few heated conversations and meetings, Messick said he felt unsafe and was worried about losing his job.
A couple of days later he sent the university’s HR adviser, Carol
"The university's actions appear opportunistic in the circumstances." Employment Relations Authority
Gunn, his resignation letter in which he swore and threatened to damage property.
‘‘Dismiss me by the end of today ... Do it and I will just go in peace, leave me alone and leave my colleagues out of it. I’ve been humiliated enough.’’
Gunn said she took the email as his resignation without notice. She was aware of Messick being diagnosed with depression but did not believe this was relevant to his decision to resign.
But the ERA found Gunn knew Messick was unwell due to his work situation and had contemplated quitting.
Gunn had received an email from the university’s employee support service that noted Messick’s case as ‘‘depression relating to dissatisfaction with work situation. Contemplating resigning’’.
The ERA said the university should not have accepted the email as a resignation in these circumstances.
‘‘In my view a fair and reasonable employer would not have accepted the 16 May email as a resignation without notice. It would have warranted disciplinary action but that did not occur.
‘‘Despite the university’s knowledge of the above matters Ms Gunn accepts Dr Messick’s email with the alleged resignation without notice within 1 hour of its receipt. The university’s actions appear opportunistic in the circumstances.’’
The university was ordered to pay Messick $20,000 for unjustified dismissal.