Peter Smythe employed Denise Jones as a caregiver at a Rest Home in New Plymouth.

In March 1995, Ms Jones suffered a back strain after one of the rest home residents punched her in the stomach. She visited her doctor who put her off work for five weeks and prescribed physiotherapy.

Unfortunately, Ms Jones did not recover as expected, and her doctor later referred her to an orthopaedic surgeon. The orthopaedic surgeon advised further rest and placed her in a back brace. By July 1995, she was certified fit for light duties.

In the meantime, however, Mr Smythe wrote to Ms Jones and advised her that unless she returned to normal duties by 26 May 1995, she would be deemed to have terminated her employment. Ms Jones was unable to comply with this ultimatum and her employment was terminated, as threatened, soon afterwards.

Ms Jones brought a personal grievance against Mr Smythe alleging that she had been unjustifiably dismissed. The Employment Tribunal upheld her claim and awarded her $1500 compensation and $900 costs.

Mr Smythe appealed to the Employment Court. The Court dismissed his appeal on the grounds that he had made inadequate attempts to enquire into and ascertain the nature of Ms Jones’s injury and how long she would be off work.

This case serves as a reminder about the importance of procedural fairness in dismissal cases. Employers must be in possession of all the facts before deciding to dismiss regardless of whether the dismissal is for sickness, misconduct, or redundancy. In most cases, the full facts can only be uncovered by properly investigating the matter. If an employer dismisses an employee without properly investgating the matter and being in full possession of all of the facts, then the employer will held responsible for any foreseeable loss or damage suffered by the employee as Mr Smythe learned to his considerable cost.