Woman awarded $15,700 after being fired three days into new job

Sunday, 29 November 2020

An experienced marketing professional who was sacked just three days into her job for failing to “hit the ground running” has been awarded $15,774 by the Employment Relations Authority.

Roxanne Berea won her unjustified dismissal claim against Christchurch-based infant formula maker Best Health Foods, after the firm tried to fire her under the 90-day trial, without a proper induction.

The day before she started work in January earlier this year, Berea asked Best Health Foods general manager James Gu what his expectations were, but he never replied.

Berea signed her contract mid-January and started her job soon after. Her contract mentioned her employment was subject to a 90-day trial period, during which her employment could be terminated with three-days notice.

**READ MORE:

* Employer tries to fire worker under 90-day trial, fails

* Health board hit with costs in employment case

* Receptionist sacked for not 'fitting in' gets $26k payout

**

Berea started her new job on January 17, and on her first day she helped make a presentation for a Chinese delegation that was supposed to visit. But she later found out it had been postponed.

On her second day, Berea said she was asked to write content for Best Health Foods’ website but was having IT issues.

Berea said again she asked Gu for a briefing on what was expected, but he told her to check online to see what other companies were doing and do something similar.

On her third and final day at work, Berea was told her work was “basic” and she had until the end of the day to produce better content.

But at 4.30pm that day Berea was told she was no longer needed.

Gu said he sacked her under the 90-day trial because he expected her to “hit the ground running” when she started and was unimpressed by her IT and writing skills.

Shortly after Gu emailed her to say he would pay her for the next three days, and she didn’t need to work.

But the authority found the 90-day trial period was invalid and Berea was unjustifiably dismissed because she was never offered the three-day notice period Best Health Foods was contractually obligated to give her.

The authority said given her “extremely short” employment, Berea was not given sufficient time or help to demonstrate her skill level.

“The manner of the dismissal was abrupt with no practical opportunity for Ms Berea to obtain representation or have any input into the decision … No fair and reasonable employer could have concluded that summary dismissal on performance grounds was warranted in these circumstances.”

“The hasty decision to dismiss in context was a wholly disproportionate response and any reasonable employer would have easily perceived that they had overreacted,” the authority said.

As a result the authority ordered Best Health Foods Limited to pay Berea $12,000 in compensation for humiliation and $3774 in lost wages.