Commute 200km — or lose job
A worker who won an employment case against the Waikato DHB for moving her job 100km away and telling her to take it or leave it has been given double her original payout after the DHB’s appeal backfired.
The DHB lost the initial Employment Relations Authority case for unjustifiably dismissing 67-year-old Kathy Archibald, a health promoter based in Thames, and was ordered to pay her compensation of $10,000 plus severance pay.
But the DHB’s unsuccessful move to appeal the decision now means it will have to pay $20,000 and legal fees.
And Archibald’s union – the Public Service Association – has slammed the DHB’s handling of the matter at a time when they are under fire for former chief executive Nigel Murray’s spending.
Archibald had worked in the health sector for 52 years, with most of the time at the Waikato DHB or its predecessors.
In 2016, Archibald’s job was disestablished during a restructure with the new role offered to her entailing a daily 200km round-trip hike to Hamilton for six months.
Although the decision for the restructure was genuine, the way in which the Waikato DHB approached the matter was met with difficulties.
Archibald, nearing retirement, declined the new role because of her fragile physical state and had advised the DHB that the extent of the travel associated with the new position would ‘‘destroy’’ her. Instead of making inquiries into Archibald’s concerns, the DHB presented her with two options – either take the job or have her employment terminated.
The DHB refused to pay Archibald severance pay despite being contractually required to, and appealed the court’s decision but lost. The Employment Court has ordered it to pay a further $10,000.
Archibald said the Employment Court process had been painful and hoped it would bring about change.
‘‘I see the period that I’ve had with the Waikato DHB as incredibly painful, but it hasn’t tainted all of the Waikato DHB. I’ve always received compassion within the clinical – frontline staff, who do an amazing job,’’ Archibald said.
‘‘There is something that caused a culture change which is responsible for how I was treated and I just hope that this decision will trigger a culture change so that no other employee has to go through what I’ve been through.’’
Archibald said the DHB had failed to consult her during the process and was only presented with a final document that showed the extent of the travel.
The 67-year-old said she went through various stages of profound grief when she lost her job and felt further aggrieved when the organisation appealed the original decision.
‘‘When the DHB appealed the process, I really felt that this added to the injury I had already suffered and the court reflected my distress by increasing my compensation payment.
‘‘The money will make a big difference to my life, because I do have a year’s redundancy as well, which they’ve been ordered to pay and the compensation . . .’’
PSA National Secretary Glenn Barclay said Archibald’s treatment by the DHB was cavalier and said more scrutiny needed to be shone on the DHB’s management.
‘‘The PSA is pleased Mrs Archibald has received a more substantial payout, but we question the DHB’s judgment in bringing this appeal. The take-it-or-leave-it approach has no place in modern industrial relations and we are glad the authority – and now the court – agrees,’’ Barclay said.
‘‘At a time when the board faces criticism for its former CEO Nigel Murray’s out-of-control spending, we do not believe this is money well spent.’’
Greg Peploe, DHB director of people and performance, said the DHB had a genuine desire to retain Archibald.
‘‘Regrettably she elected not to take up the offer of redeployment made to her and wished to pursue her entitlement to redundancy. Her claim raised a number of issues, some of which have not been previously addressed by the courts in New Zealand,’’ Peploe said. Peploe said the DHB wanted the court to provide clarity around the legal rights of employees being offered alternative positions as part of a restructure process.