The company which runs drug and alcohol programmes at the Otago Corrections Facility has been criticised for failing "dismally" to meet the provisions of the Employment Relations Act in its decision to fire a counsellor.
Phillip Hemopo was unjustifiably dismissed from CareNZ, which operates seven drug treatment units for prison inmates, an Employment Relations Authority decision found. He was awarded $5000 compensation and one week's wages.
Mr Hemopo, a qualified teacher with postgraduate qualifications in drug and alcohol counselling, had applied for a counselling job with CareNZ at the prison near Milton and was offered the job in March last year.
He agreed to take the job, but about a week before starting he was charged by police with obtaining by deception after taking a bar code from a hoe in a hardware shop and swapping it for a cheaper one.
The incident happened on the anniversary of the accidental death of his brother-in-law, which Mr Hemopo said affected him badly.
After getting legal advice and the possibility of getting police diversion was raised, Mr Hemopo did not tell CareNZ of the charge.
However, when he came to sign his employment agreement he advised his superior of the incident. The following day he was told he was to be dismissed. He later received diversion.
Authority member Michael Loftus found CareNZ failed "dismally" to meet provisions of the Employment Relations Act by never putting to Mr Hemopo its "real concerns" about the offending, compromising his ability to be an effective counsellor, or their fear the recent nature of his offending would prevent access to the prison.
Mr Hemopo was also not given an opportunity to explain, so therefore, the explanation was not genuinely considered, he said.
"These are simply not the actions of a fair and reasonable employer and no employer is capable of basing a decision to dismiss on such a deficient investigation."
The lack of inquiry was such, at the point of dismissal, that CareNZ did not even know the exact nature of the offending, which made it very hard to conclude he had committed serious misconduct or that his actions impaired his ability to work for them, Mr Loftus said in his decision.
However, he had no doubt that if CareNZ had completed a proper investigation, dismissal would have resulted.
Mr Loftus ordered CareNZ to pay Mr Hemopo one week's wages to cover the week it would have taken for a full and proper investigation and $5000 as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
The issue of costs was reserved.
