A former St John worker who claims he suffered years of "covert bullying" was awarded $60,000. Photo / 123RF
A former St John worker who claims he suffered years of "covert bullying" was awarded $60,000. Photo / 123RF
A former St John worker who claims he suffered years of "covert bullying" before being unjustifiably dismissed has been awarded more than $60,000 by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
The ERA ordered St John to pay James Hilford $32,918 for lost wages arising from his unjustified dismissal and $35,000 incompensation.
Hilford was employed by St John from 2 July 2008 to 12 May 2015, when he claims he had been treated unfairly by management and was being covertly bullied and stressed by communications staff.
In early 2013, and again in May 2013, Hilford raised concerns with St John that he was being bullied by one of St John's communications staff (referred only to as Ms A).
The concerns related to the way Ms A communicated with him.
Following an investigation, St John concluded that Hilford's complaint was unfounded.
However, by March 2014 Hilford was still experiencing issues with Ms A and emailed his concerns to Mark Deoki, St John's East Auckland Territory Manager, which was met with no response.
Another email to Deoki in July 2014 regarding Ms A's lack of co-operation with him – including one occasion she hang up on him – was again met with no response.
In August 2014, Hilford did not receive his work roster. He emailed the appropriate roster clerk (only referred to as Ms B).
According to ERA documents, Ms B's response to Hilford's request for a copy of the roster was sarcastic and threatening.
A snippet of the email Ms B sent Hilford.
Hilford provided a copy of the email to Deoki.
The following week Hilford did not receive his roster again and once he returned from a period of annual leave, Ms B had excluded his name from the roster.
In addition, Hilford felt as though one of his ambulance colleagues (Ms D) was treating him like a disobedient child.
Evidence provided by Hilford in ERA documents pointed to an incident on November 3, 2014, when Hilford claims Ms D made shoe shoeing motions with her hands when asking Hilford to carry out an ambulance check.
When Hilford said he was going to finish what he was doing first, he said Ms D walked towards his seat and flicked her right hand across the upper left side of his head, pretending to hit him.
Hilford said in ERA documents he was afraid of her attitude and thought she was reporting back to management about his mental and emotional state.
His concerns about being monitored were correct.
In an email provided to the ERA, Deoki and Robbie Orpin (Hilford's supervisor) had asked Ms D to monitor Hilford and report back on any concerning behaviour, though Hilford was not informed he was being monitored.
In early 2015 Hilford would write to St John solicitors about the cumulative impact of a series of events which demonstrated a "bullying culture".
In a later letter from the company, Hilford was informed that St John's investigation into his complaints of bullying had concluded and none of his complaints were upheld.
Following sick leave from the company later in 2015, Hilford was dismissed for "serious misconduct".
St John claimed Hilford's work partner viewed him taking a green copy of a Patient Report Form (PRF).
Hilford claimed he was not aware this was a problem, citing that he had taken PRFs home for years, and provided evidence that another staff member had emailed a PRF form, with patient details, to him before he went on sick leave.
In its determination, the ERA said it was satisfied that St John's termination of Hilford did not fall within the range of what a fair and reasonable employer could have done.
"I am satisfied that St John's decision to terminate Hilford's employment did not fall within the range of what a notional fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time.
"St John did not have a sufficient and reliable basis for concluding that Hilford had been guilty of misconduct. Furthermore, I find St John failed to provide Hilford with access to relevant information and an opportunity to comment on this before the decision was made in breach of its obligations of good faith. These defects were not minor and did result in Hilford being treated unfairly."
"Hilford's actions in taking the green PRF forms, and not de-identifying them, were the catalyst relied upon by St John to terminate his employment. However, on balance, I am satisfied they were not the real reason why he was dismissed," the authority said.
Furthermore, the ERA said St John failed to provide Hilford with safe working conditions which affected his conditions of employment to his disadvantage.
"I find St John failed to take all reasonable and practicable steps to provide Hilford with safe working conditions. This unjustifiably affected his conditions of employment to his disadvantage," the authority said.
"By failing to address Hilford's initial concerns, and to provide him with support, Hilford's state of mind deteriorated to such an extent that he was required to take sick leave."
