A former senior lecturer at Canterbury University has failed to prove her sacking was unjustified. Photo / 123RF
A former senior lecturer at Canterbury University has failed to prove her sacking was unjustified. Photo / 123RF
A senior lecturer whose life was “badly dislocated” by a string of events since the Christchurch earthquakes has lost not only her job, but the subsequent case she brought against her former employer.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has found the University of Canterbury was justified in sacking Dr ChristinaStachurski after it found she subcontracted some of her lecturing responsibilities to another university employee.
Stachurski told the Herald she was disappointed with the process and the outcome, including the length of time to get a result.
She said the ERA stipulated that a determination was due within 90 days of the hearing but it took 16 months to deliver its decision.
ERA member Andrew Dallas said in the decision released this month the dismissal occurred within the context of a complaint about “aggressive and unreasonable behaviour” Stachurski had made in 2019 against a head of department at the time, and how she felt it was not properly handled.
It was during the university’s investigation into this that it became aware of the subcontracting.
A former Canterbury University lecturer has criticised the Employment Relations Authority for the time it took to deliver its decision over a grievance she took against her former employer. Photo / 123RF
Stachurski told the Herald she believed her insistence that her complaint should be addressed had made her a target for retaliatory behaviour and that the staff members involved in the investigation “worked together to find a way to eject me from the university”.
She had been employed as a continuing, part-time senior lecturer at the university’s English department from March 2009 and was dismissed for serious misconduct in October 2020, which she argued was unjustified.
In 2018, Stachurski reached an agreement with her employer to take a sabbatical spread across the entire academic year so she could continue lecturing and concentrate on writing a play about claimants’ interaction with the Earthquake Commission.
The ERA noted Stachurski’s life had been “badly dislocated” by the Canterbury earthquakes between 2010 and 2011, and then the grief caused by the death of her partner in 2014.
She requested further sabbatical leave covering part of 2019 but it was declined.
The play, EQ f@#%ing C, ran into difficulties in early 2019 over its apparent depiction of a central government politician. It required a number of re-writes which were completed only weeks before the play’s scheduled premiere on March 30, 2019.
By this stage, Stachurski’s sabbatical had ended and the first semester of the new academic year had started.
She entered into an arrangement with another staff member for her to be paid to give the first lecture in the English course for semester one so Stachurski could continue with the play, which was then cancelled by the Court Theatre in response to the March 15 terror attack, the ERA said.
The agreement was reaffirmed several times to include further lectures, although there was some dispute between the employer and Stachurski about how many lectures were given by the other staff member.
The ERA said the outcome of the case would not have changed whether Stachurski had paid the staff member to give one lecture, or lectures for the entire semester.
She accepted her contract of employment required her to personally perform her job for Canterbury University, but said she was never aware of any policy about how substitute lecturing was arranged.
In her experience, staff covered for each other on the basis of informal and personal arrangements.
The university accepted this happened but the scope was limited. It did, however, investigate.
Stachurski did not accept the approach, findings or outcome of the investigation and lodged a personal grievance in October 2020.
She was critical of multiple parts of the investigation, including that in reaching the decision to dismiss her, the professor in charge of it paid “insufficient regard to a number of mitigating factors”.
They included her length of service, health and wellbeing and significant contextual stress-causing factors.
Stachurski argued it was unreasonable to hold an employee grappling with mental unwellness to the same standard as a healthy person.
The ERA said that she gave no evidence to back her mental state at the time.
But Stachurski told the Herald medical certificates from her GP and a highly qualified counsellor were included in the bundle of documents submitted.
The university said in essence, Stachurski had subcontracted a key aspect of her role without permission, which was a breach of the fundamental obligation owed by an employee to an employer of personal performance of work.
The authority said that while there may have been some “folksiness” in a couple of respects and a factual inaccuracy may have occurred around the exact number of lectures actually given on behalf of Stachurski, it was apparent at a very early stage she paid the staff member to give at least one lecture she was otherwise required to give by virtue of her employment with the university.
In other words, Stachurski brought into existence an employment relationship between herself and the other staff member.
The ERA said that while it was ill-advised, Stachurski’s intentions were “benign” and she did not seek to exploit the staff member.
Having found the university was justified in dismissing Stachurski, it was not necessary to consider remedies.
