KEY POINTS:
An Employment Court judge has found that a Wellington company, ordered to compensate an employee fired after she sent an email containing pictures of naked people, acted appropriately.
Judge Coral Shaw found Arthur D. Riley & Co (ADR) was justified in dismissing Jessica Wood after she forwarded the
email, having been twice warned about similar behaviour.
The company successfully challenged last year's Employment Relations Authority ruling, and will receive the compensation payment it paid into court, with any interest earned. Costs were reserved.
ADR was to have paid 75 per cent of Ms Wood's lost wages from September 18 2006 to January 2007, and $9000 damages for humiliation.
The ERA was told that when she started work in July 2005 as an administrative assistant, Ms Wood was given a copy of the firm's policies and house rules, which said dismissal was likely if she breached the internet or email policy.
The policy stated employees were not to "access, download, save, request, transmit, store or purposely view sexual, pornographic, obscene, racist, profane or other offensive or inappropriate material". The company retained the right to decide what was "offensive" or "inappropriate".
In December 2005 and August 2006, Ms Wood was warned about her internet use, including questionable material she was sending from company computers.
Less than a month after the second warning, Ms Wood forwarded an email on the subject of "Eleven Most Hot People!!!!!!!" [sic] to workmates and friends.
She had received the email - containing images of barely clothed or naked people, some obese, others with female heads edited on to male bodybuilders - from her father, a Wellington City Council employee.
After a disciplinary meeting the company met Ms Wood again. She apologised but gave no explanation. She was fired.
The ERA ruled the company had a flawed and inconsistent approach to its own email policy; had overstated how objectionable the pictures were; and had not disciplined other employees who received her email.
But Judge Shaw said the internet and email policy was clear that offensive material being circulated would not be tolerated. The ruling on whether it was serious misconduct depended on factors including the workplace culture, house rules, and Ms Wood's awareness of the company's expectations.
"Of necessity employers bring to their decisions the values, culture and expectations of their specific workplace. They must weigh the impact of the behaviour of an employee under investigation on other employees and the work environment generally." However, employers did not have licence to impose their personal prejudices or values on employees.
- NZPA
