Sue Thoms (back) lost her job with Blind Low Vision NZ over her reluctance to get vaccinated. She has now been reinstated to the job after a ruling by the Employment Relations Authority. She is seen here with osteopath Jessica Evans in training for an earlier cycle challenge. Photo / Chris Rudsdale
Sue Thoms (back) lost her job with Blind Low Vision NZ over her reluctance to get vaccinated. She has now been reinstated to the job after a ruling by the Employment Relations Authority. She is seen here with osteopath Jessica Evans in training for an earlier cycle challenge. Photo / Chris Rudsdale
A legally blind woman who loved helping others who had lost their sight was devastated to lose the job she had done for more than 32 years.
Sue Thoms was dismissed from her role with Blind Low Vision New Zealand after refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19. She has now been reinstated and awarded $25,000 compensation for the hurt and humiliation suffered.
The Employment Relations Authority said in a decision this month that the process around her dismissal was flawed, and not enough time had been taken to explore alternatives when she failed to comply with her employer’s vaccine policy.
Blind Low Vision NZ told NZME that it was appealing the decision.
ERA member Sarah Kennedy-Martin considered the medical exemption process was relevant to the decision to dismiss Thoms, who has multiple sclerosis (MS). After talking with her doctor, she decided she did not want to be vaccinated at that stage of the pandemic but was willing to review her position as more information and options came to light.
“This is someone who was absolutely in love with helping people who had lost their sight, and to remove her from that was devastating,” Thoms’ advocate, Theresa Tudor, told NZME.
“She’s extremely happy to be back in the role.”
Blind Low Vision NZ says it went through a fair consultation process before deciding to dismiss Sue Thoms over failure to comply with its vaccine policy. Photo / Supplied
Thoms told NZME the outcome showed there was an onus on employers to make fair and reasonable attempts to keep staff rather than use the mandate to dismiss unvaccinated employees.
“It has been an extremely stressful and challenging time, both emotionally and financially.
“I’m thrilled that the determination went in my favour and I hope this gives encouragement to others in a similar situation.”
Thoms was employed as a primary service provider for the Royal Foundation of the Blind Incorporated, which trades as Blind Low Vision NZ – a registered charity that supports people with sight loss so they can maintain their independence.
She provided needs assessment services to clients until her dismissal in February 2022, after the vaccine mandate came into force.
She successfully argued her dismissal was unjustified because her employer failed to fairly consider alternatives to dismissal.
Blind Low Vision NZ said it went through a fair consultation process with Thoms regarding the vaccination policy, implemented it fairly and engaged with her regarding the consequences of non-compliance, including that it had considered alternatives to dismissal.
The ERA found the dismissal was unjustified and ordered that Thoms be reinstated to the payroll immediately. It ruled that, within 42 days of the May 19 decision, she was to be reinstated to her former position or a position no less advantageous to her.
Thoms held several roles in different locations around the country over her 32 years of working for the organisation.
She moved to Blenheim in 2011 and, in early 2021, when a vacancy arose in a service provision role, she took on all of the Nelson region, including Golden Bay and the West Coast, in addition to her existing geographical area.
She was able to work with help from a Workbridge support person who drove for her and assisted with administration tasks.
The vaccine mandate came into force on April 30, 2021, and was amended on October 25 to include care and support workers.
Blind Low Vision NZ began consultation on its proposed vaccination policy. It “strongly encouraged” all eligible employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine but acknowledged some would be medically unable to be vaccinated or would choose not to receive it for personal reasons.
In circumstances where an employee was ineligible to receive the vaccine for medical reasons, Blind Low Vision NZ said it would discuss this in good faith.
Thoms set out her position, including a proposal that would allow her to continue in her role if she was to remain unvaccinated, due to her underlying medical condition.
She was told by her employer at an investigation meeting that it would have to find a way to accommodate her if she had a formal medical exemption from the director-general of health.
She had an exemption letter from her GP but had not applied for an exemption under the formal process put in place later by the Government.
Kennedy-Martin said further consultation and extra information would have been important before any final decision was made and that the option of seeking a vaccination exemption from the director-general of health was also not explored.
“It was also not clear what the decision maker had taken into account before reaching her final decision,” Kennedy-Martin said.
In January 2022, Thoms was told that neither redeployment nor variation to her role were viable alternatives.
Because she chose to remain unvaccinated and did not have a medical exemption, she could no longer lawfully provide care and support to clients in their homes, which was considered crucial to the organisation’s service delivery model.
Thoms was also told in the letter of termination that it was not possible to split her role in the manner proposed.
However, the ERA said there must have been alternative options available that would have allowed Thoms to remain employed, because of how she was already carrying out the role, adapted to accommodate her sight impairment.
The authority recognised it was a difficult time, and things were “moving fast”, but it was not satisfied the employer had exhausted all reasonable alternatives to avoid termination of Thoms’ role.
It found the dismissal was “substantively unjustified” and that remedies were appropriate. It was also satisfied the employment relationship could be “successfully re-established”, noting Thoms’ unblemished work history over 32 years.
Along with $25,000 compensation, an order was made for the employer to pay three months’ lost remuneration from the date of dismissal.
Thoms said she was grateful for the support of friends and family and those in the Marlborough community who had also found themselves in a difficult situation because of the mandates.
