A man was unjustifiably dismissed by Drip IV. Pictured is marketing from the company's website. Photo / Drip IV
A man was unjustifiably dismissed by Drip IV. Pictured is marketing from the company's website. Photo / Drip IV
A nurse who worked for a mobile healthcare business that provided intravenous vitamins to its customers has been awarded $23,000 after he was unjustifiably dismissed.
After losing his job at Drip IV New Zealand, Jesse Hylands turned to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), which released its decision today.
Hylands allegedbefore the ERA that he was fired just after he raised concerns about whether the company was using illegal prescriptions. He believed his dismissal was retaliation.
But in the view of Drip IV Australia, which according to Companies Office is under the same management as the New Zealand branch, Hylands’ concerns were “completely fabricated” and he had breached his contract, it told the Herald when contacted for comment on the employment case.
It would not respond to further questions and did not provide a name to attribute its comments.
The company did not engage in the ERA proceedings and its New Zealand website, phone number and email address are now disconnected.
According to the decision, Drip IV New Zealand provided a service where they delivered minerals, vitamins, and amino acids through an IV drip to its clients.
Registered nurses administered the infusions, which had been tailored to each individual’s needs.
Hylands worked for the business from September 2021 until he was dismissed in April 2022. He began on a casual basis, whilst also working full-time as an Emergency Department nurse, before he was promoted to the full-time position of training manager.
The business relied on prescriptions for the vitamins being obtained through the online app Instant Scripts.
Hylands was initially confident the app’s doctors were New Zealand-based and authorised to prescribe for New Zealand clients, based on assurances he had received during his training with the business.
The app ensured Hylands complied with his professional and legal obligations under the Medicines Act 1981, obligations he understood required him to only administer medicines prescribed by an authorised prescriber, such as a doctor based in New Zealand.
But according to the decision, Hylands went on to doubt whether the business was using a locally-registered doctor.
He alleged to have first noticed “red flags” with the prescribing process when he received a batch of vitamins that did not match the names of the clients they were due to be administered to.
Drip IV marketing from its website. Photo / Drip IV
He claimed his Australian manager told him the company would file a prescription for ten vials, administer one and reallocate the remaining nine - which is what he’d received.
Hylands also noticed the same doctor appeared to be signing off prescriptions in both New Zealand and Australia.
He expressed his concerns in an email to the company director who said he would be introduced to the New Zealand-based doctors in the next few days.
After not hearing back, he followed up with several further emails in which he stated that if the medicines were prescribed by an Australian doctor they could not legally be used in New Zealand.
The next day he found himself locked out of the app the company used for scheduling, rostering and ordering, and he could not access his work email.
Hylands contacted the director to ask why he had been booted out of Drip IV’s systems.
The director responded by instructing Hylands to stand down from any further duties until further notice.
“Due to the way in which you have conducted yourself over the last few days, I have to have an urgent internal meeting about your behaviour,” the email said.
When he asked for an explanation, Hylands was told by email: “Drip IV has made the decision to terminate your employment effective immediately. Due to the nature of your role, a lot of trust had been held for you and your position.
“You have shown that you are not capable to fulfil the role you were employed to do. I am extremely disappointed that it has come to this and I hope you can take this as a learning curve for your next position.”
Hylands contacted the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) which agreed to represent him in a case of unjustified dismissal against Drip IV.
The NZNO organiser emailed the business twice and did not receive a response from the director.
ERA member Lucia Vincent heard the case and said in her decision it was clear Hylands had been unfairly dismissed from his role.
“Drip IV has not justified its decision to dismiss Jesse. It followed an unfair process that failed to meet minimum procedural and good faith requirements,” she said.
“None of these failures were minor.”
During the investigation, Hylands told the ERA his dismissal put him under pressure as he had a mortgage and a young family to provide for. He said it caused him many sleepless nights and stress.
