A motel manager who wrote what her employer considered was a threatening letter on the work computer has been awarded almost $27,000 after it was found she was unjustifiably dismissed. Photo / 123RF
A motel manager who wrote what her employer considered was a threatening letter on the work computer has been awarded almost $27,000 after it was found she was unjustifiably dismissed. Photo / 123RF
A motel manager sacked after she wrote a letter her employer felt was threatening has proved the dismissal was unjustified and has now been awarded almost $27,000.
The figure might have been higher had Jacqueline Furniss not written the letter on the work computer which the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) said had rightly concerned and offended her employer.
The letter was never sent but discovered by her employer while Furniss was on sick leave after the relationship broke down over contract negotiations.
She described it as a “metaphor” for the frustration she felt and that it was not meant to harm anyone.
But the managing director and co-owner of Gisborne’s Waikanae Beach Motel, Nicola Evans, felt the content was “offensive and personal”.
While the ERA did not say what was in the letter, it alluded to “harm being caused to Ms Evans and Waikanae Beach Motel Ltd (WBML)”.
A motel manager sacked after the discovery of a letter her employer felt was threatening, has proved she was unjustifiably dismissed. But the amount she was awarded was reduced because of her conduct and how it contributed to the situation. Photo / 123rf
Furniss turned to the authority after she was fired from her job at the motel, claiming she was unjustifiably dismissed.
In its recent ruling on the matter, ERA ultimately found gaps in the process by which Furniss was dismissed and ordered WBML to pay her $11,864 in lost wages and $15,000 in compensation for the hurt and humiliation suffered as a result of her unjustified dismissal.
She was successful with her main claim, but a minimum wage claim did not go her way.
Furniss told NZME through her lawyer Matt Belesky that she was happy with the win, but overall, she was disappointed with aspects of the decision.
“The decision, I believe, does not reflect the hardship, distress and physical impairment this experience has caused me.”
She said neither did it consider all the compelling arguments made on her behalf.
Nicola Evans told NZME she respected the authority’s decision but believed employers were also entitled to be safe in the workplace.
“The process let us down, although it was lawyer-led,” Evans said.
She said events began after what she said was the offer of better working conditions than what Furniss had in the contract with the previous owner of the motel.
“The focus changed when misconduct issues arose,” Evans said.
Furniss had been the motel manager at Waikanae Beach Motel since September 2018. Her employment continued from October 2020 when Evans and co-director Rick Cirolli took over the business until she was dismissed in February 2021.
Tensions had already built but worsened with the discovery of the letter.
Furniss did not have a written employment agreement until the motel’s previous owner asked her to draft one when the business was proposed for sale.
The sale and purchase agreement required all employees to be offered employment on similar terms and conditions to their existing contracts.
The discord started when WBML began working towards a new employment offer with new terms and conditions, including what the ERA described as “problematic provisions requiring Ms Furniss to make herself available after hours to deal with enquiries”.
WBML adjusted some of the proposed terms of the role to factor in concerns about fatigue, but the sticking point was around days off.
The ERA said negotiations about terms and conditions quickly became difficult and were never concluded.
Evans attached the final version of the proposal and told Furniss that if she decided not to accept that offer, then employment had ended by way of resignation.
Furniss was shocked but said she was willing to resolve the issues.
Shortly after, she received seven disciplinary allegations related to operational matters.
Furniss became unwell and was deemed medically unfit for work from December 23, 2020, until January 11, 2021.
She planned to return to work on January 25 but was told by Evans that it had to be in accordance with the medical certificate which said Furniss was unfit to return to work until February 2.
It was then revealed that the Word document had been found in the company’s computer system, which showed Furniss harboured “deep-seated views” against Evans and “wished her harm”.
Furniss said the note was her “venting” about the stress and pressure she was feeling and that she never intended for anyone to read it.
The submissions on her behalf alleged a breach of privacy by WBML by accessing that folder on the work computer.
The business denied it was a breach of privacy because the document was saved on the work computer and in a folder with the word “contract” in the name.
Furniss returned to work on February 2 but was met by Evans who told her to speak to her lawyer.
Later that day she received a notice of termination and a separate letter setting out the findings in relation to the seven disciplinary allegations.
The basis for termination was that her role was a key role in the business and required the utmost trust and confidence.
Two days later Furniss raised a personal grievance.
The ERA found the dismissal was unjustified but reduced remedies by 25 per cent based on the degree to which Furniss’ conduct had contributed to the situation.
