Published Human Resources Magazine Autumn 2024
Successful businesses tend to be agile and adapt to changing circumstances. Finding the right solution for the employer is as important as managing the change to resolve the situation.
Failing to manage that change may result in the employment relationship being terminated with the employer facing substantial claims, as the employer found in the recent case of LNF v Department of Corrections in the Employment Relations Authority.
In 2019 Corrections advertised a role with a position description that was dated 2007. The intention was for the role to be split 80% in one team and 20% in another team, and while it required some administrative work in both teams the work was at a more senior level. While it was the intention to explain the position more thoroughly through the interview process, this was not successfully communicated.
Corrections has a complicated organisational structure, which was further complicated with managers and staff being seconded into alternative positions for periods of time. The situation became “messy” within the first few weeks of LNF’s employment. LNF started raising issues with her managers about her role, including where she sat in the team structure. There was additional conflict with a colleague regarding boundaries between their two roles, with the colleague believing that LNF was stepping into her role.
Her manager saw the situation as a personality conflict and suggested that LNF move into his team. LNF was not persuaded that the move would improve the situation. Matters came to a head and there was an altercation between LNF and her colleague. A mediation was proposed, but LNF was not prepared to attend mediation.
LNF was moved into her manager’s team on a full-time basis. Although her manager believed that all the parties were content with the arrangement, LNF continued to have an issue with the lack of clarity she perceived in her role. Her manager tried to define what work LNF had been doing and to find meaningful full-time work for her. He started discussions about “how do we fill in your day” and discussions regarding a job description. LNF started to look for other work at Corrections because she felt like she was still getting caught in the crossfire.
A formal letter was given to LNF offering her a variation of employment with a confirmation of duties. LNF did not agree and contacted her union. Numerous meetings where held with LNF and her representative. LNF received a payrise, the explanation being that there were no performance issues as there was no job description to measure performance against. Mediation was again discussed.
LNF’s managers then considered disestablishing the type of role LNF was employed to do on the basis that the support in the region was more administrative than advisory. LNF was the only employee in that type of role in the region, so LNF was the only employee effected. LNF provided feedback that the current state was that the role she was employed to do did not exist; that she had worked in an undefined role; and that her manager had failed to actively and constructively remedy this for two years. She said that the proposal had been specifically drafted to remove her from the organisation.
After a mediation was attended, LNF was advised that her role was disestablished and Corrections would work with her to explore alternatives. There was no discussion with LNF about redeployment, partly due to there being no agreement about her tasks. Months later LNF received a formal notice of severance.
LNF raised personal grievance claims and argued that Corrections used a restructure process to terminate her employment, following a long-lasting and unresolved employment relationship problem.
The Employment Relations Authority agreed, and found that the redundancy was not genuine and was used to justify the termination of LNF’s employment. LNF was awarded 6 months lost remuneration and $23,000 compensation.
As part of its reasoning it appears that the Authority thought that Corrections could have initiated a formal review of LNF’s role, and the basis of the review findings would have supported Correction’s position. The Authority appears to have significantly downplayed the many discussions that were held with LNF regarding her role and attempts to find her meaningful alternative work.
The decision demonstrates that it is important in change management to clearly understand the issue, identify possible options and engage promptly with staff likely to be effected. Read more...