A woman has been awarded nearly $60,000 after discovering the job she was hired for at the Department of Corrections (Corrections) effectively didn’t exist.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found that Corrections misled the woman with an outdated job listing, leading to her unjustified dismissal.
Background
The woman (granted name suppression) is an experienced public servant who applied for a position at Corrections before the Covid-19 pandemic. The job description she responded to was outdated by 11 years and did not reflect the actual duties and responsibilities of the role. Despite her initial enthusiasm, she quickly found herself in a confusing work environment with unclear expectations and multiple managers.
According to the ERA’s decision, Corrections had reused an old job listing due to internal difficulties in creating new roles or amending existing job descriptions. The role was supposed to involve 80% contract management and 20% support tasks, but this division was not communicated to the woman during her interview or onboarding.
Complications
The woman raised concerns about her role shortly after starting, but her confusion continued.
Multiple managers gave her conflicting tasks, and she found herself performing duties far below her expected advisory role. Corrections eventually offered her a contract variation to reflect the actual tasks required, but she declined, believing it to be primarily administrative.
The situation worsened during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020, when Corrections claimed she did little work from home. The ordeal culminated with the termination of her employment in February 2022.
Issues
The woman then took Corrections to the ERA, claiming unjustified dismissal and alleging that her role had been eliminated through a misuse of restructuring.
ERA Holding
ERA member Natasha Szeto ruled in favour of the woman, stating that Corrections “did not have a genuine reason for dismissing” her.
She noted that “Corrections knew before it employed the woman that the job description did not accurately represent the role and tasks that it was recruiting for.” Corrections failed to provide clear role expectations and reporting lines, leaving the woman in “a state of employment limbo” for over two years.
Szeto highlighted that Corrections admitted to employing the woman in a role that “technically did not exist in the organisational structure,” only acknowledging this during the ERA investigation.
The ERA found that the woman’s feeling of being “gaslit” and “palmed off” by her managers was justified.
In her ruling, Szeto awarded the woman $36,500 for six months’ lost wages following her dismissal and $23,000 in compensation for humiliation and loss of dignity.
Takeaways
This case underscores the importance of accurate job descriptions and clear communication between employers and employees.
Employers should regularly review and update job descriptions to reflect current roles and responsibilities accurately.
Clear communication and fair processes are essential to maintaining a positive and legally compliant workplace.
For employees, it is important to voice concerns and seek clarification about job expectations early on.
If you find yourself in a similar situation, please reach out to the team here at Watermark Employment Law – we would love to assist you in the matter.
We are proud to offer initial consultation calls free of charge.
Watermark Employment Law are specialist employment lawyers acting for employers and employees.
09 532 8211