Oranga Tamariki staffer gets $12k for ‘unjustified’ treatment
A youth worker has been awarded $12,000 after the Employment Relations Authority found Oranga Tamariki “unjustifiably” disadvantaged her.
Dahlea Reisima lodged a complaint with the ERA after personal grievances she raised against Oranga Tamariki were opposed or denied.
She had worked for the organisation since 2007 at its youth justice residence, Te Au rere a te Tonga, in Palmerston North, and made several complaints about staff not following proper processes, bullying and discrimination.
Many of her claims were made outside the statutory 90-day time limit, so the authority found Oranga Tamariki was justified in dismissing those. It did find, however, that the organisation had unfairly disadvantaged Reisima’s employment after an incident at the Napier District Court.
The recently released ERA decision, delivered by member Andrew Gane, said on June 11, 2020, Reisima escorted a young person to court and spoke on his behalf.
This was without the judge’s authority and a court worker complained to Oranga Tamariki.
The following day Reisima was called into a meeting by her team leader Seiuli Fouva’a, and other senior members were there, including acting residential manager
Tom Malu and William Ropati-Livingstone.
Reisima had no prior warning of the meeting, and when she asked if she should bring a support person was told this wouldn’t be needed.
Reisima said during that meeting Malu accused her of “single-handedly ruining the relationship” between the court and Oranga Tamariki, but he denied this.
She said she had no opportunity to respond to the complaint and was given insufficient information about its nature.
At the meeting’s end, Malu told Reisima she would no longer be escorting young people.
The authority found this decision was predetermined by Malu before the meeting, and disagreed with Oranga Tamariki’s stance this was not disciplinary.
Oranga Tamariki said the approach by Malu was “low-level” and consistent with its terms of employment. But, the authority found Reisima was subjected to an unfair process as there was no forewarning of the meeting, three senior staff members were present and she did not have a support person.
Coupled with the predetermined outcome, the authority found Oranga Tamariki had “unjustifiably disadvantaged” her.
Reisima told the authority the suspension caused her angst and discomfort at a level that was hard to describe.
“Having determined Ms Reisima was unjustifiably disadvantaged she is entitled to an award for compensation pursuant for the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings that she suffered because of Oranga Tamariki’s unjustified actions,” Gane said.
The authority awarded her $12,000. It also considered her other claims but most could not be substantiated.
These included allegations about ongoing bullying, the removal of paid sick leave, a failure to provide Reisima with a safe working environment and breaching her privacy.