Border officials call for stronger laws on child-like sex dolls and Donald Trump threatens 'very severe' tariffs on Russia. Video / NZ Herald
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ
A former Inland Revenue employee has lost her bid to claim unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal after making comments other workers found offensive.
Christine Massof had worked for the department for 14 years.
She was reprimanded after she made a comment on the intranet inresponse to news that the department would be providing period products in both male and female bathrooms.
She posted: “This is awesome but a shame it took so long coming. And interesting, now that men can menstruate, free period products are available in IR bathrooms.”
Massof’s manager, Leah Galbraith, became aware when the comment was reported to her by IR’s rainbow network, which said some people were offended and upset.
Galbraith met Massof to discuss the comments and set expectations for the future.
A former Inland Revenue employee has lost her bid to claim unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal over comments about free period products in the work bathroom. Photo / Richard Tindiller, RNZ
She said it was not the first discussion of this type she had had with Massof about her need to be aware of the impact her comments could have on her colleagues. Massof denied that and said earlier incidents were different.
Galbraith said the meeting went smoothly but Massof said she was not given much opportunity to speak.
She was then given a letter headed “expectation of behaviour” which advised her that she should exercise discretion when expressing views, particularly when they could cause offence.
When staff were reorganised, Massof began reporting to a different team leader. But she said the meeting with Galbraith had left her upset and anxious.
She said after she returned from sick leave she was vulnerable and had been ostracised.
She filed a statement of problem with the Employment Relations Authority saying she had been unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment and Inland Revenue had not acted in good faith.
She then resigned.
Several months later, she raised a claim of unjustifiable constructive dismissal.
She said the letter had disadvantaged her because it was disciplinary in nature, she did not have the opportunity for a support person, it affected her prospects for promotion, it silenced her and that Inland Revenue had imposed a bathroom policy on her without consultation.
Authority member Claire English said the letter was not a disciplinary outcome and did not impose disciplinary consequences on Massof.
“There is also nothing used in the requirements or expectations themselves to support the submission that this was a disciplinary matter. They may be described as requirements to treat colleagues respectfully in the workplace and to bear in mind that colleagues may have different views to yourself.”
She said Inland Revenue was entitled to set minimum standards of behaviour.
“Insofar as Ms Massof complains that IR’s provision of free sanitary products by IR in the bathrooms was an unjustified disadvantage, this claim cannot be made out. The provision of free product to all staff with no requirement for use or engagement by staff cannot be categorised as a disadvantage, much less an unjustified one.”
She said the submission that the department had a new policy of allowing staff to use bathrooms of their choice amounted to unjustified disadvantage was also not borne out by the evidence.
“Ms Massof worked for IR for some 14 years. She was not able to explain when or how this policy was either implemented or changed by IR.
“For a claim of constructive dismissal to succeed, the dismissal must occur at the initiative of the employer. Ms Massof’s evidence is that she did not want to continue in the workplace, not due to any breach of obligation by her employer, but because she fundamentally disagreed with workplace changes over a period of many years, and no longer wished to work there as a result. This does not amount to a constructive dismissal.”
