File pic Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The SPCA has been told to pay a former staff member $20,000 in compensation and $9192 in lost wages, after the Employment Relations Authority found she had been unjustifiably dismissed.
The worker was a vet nurse who worked for the SPCA as a kennel coordinator for five years, including in team leader roles, before she was dismissed for serious misconduct.
The SPCA said she had failed to administer or record treatments given to animals in her care, and failed to administer prescribed ear drop medicine to a dog.
There were a number of incidents over the course of 2023, leading up to her losing her job.
In January, she had taken a dog home in a fostering arrangement. When she returned it, it had failed to put on the required weight. She had left the dog with a neighbour while she took leave and it had been underfed, possibly because of other dogs eating the food.
She was invited to a disciplinary meeting about breaches of her employment agreement in relation to the care and welfare of animals.
Almost a month later, she was given a formal written warning and put on a six-week performance improvement plan.
By May that year, she had become a senior animal attendant team leader - canine, because of restructuring.
She shared an office with her manager but when her manager was in meetings, she could not access her computer.
It eventually came to her manager's attention that she had not recorded treatments on her computer in the SPCA's system. This was an issue because it could lead to animals receiving double doses.
Her manager raised concerns with her that she was missing admin tasks and not keeping adequate records. She was sent an email with three pages of concerns.
In September she was invited to another meeting to discuss her failure to administer or record worming and flea treatments, failing to ensure dogs were desexed, not keeping to the daily schedule and being late to work twice.
At the end of the month she was told that the SPCA had made a preliminary decision that she would be summarily dismissed. She was given the opportunity to provide feedback which she did but was dismissed on 20 November.
The employee argued the decision to terminate her was not justified or procedurally fair.
She said the SPCA had relied on her responses at a preliminary meeting, when she was flustered and unprepared, rather than the formal meeting.
She argued that she was not aware of ear drop medication the SPCA said she missed, and this should not be cause for a finding of serious misconduct or gross negligence.
The formal warning she received in February was not for anything similar and should not have affected the finding, she said.
The SPCA argued she had plenty of opportunities to be aware of the nature and seriousness of what was happening and the process was fair.
It said it did not accept her explanation for why she had not recorded treatments because she could have taken her laptop out of the shared office or used another device.
It said she should have followed up on the dog's treatment plan, medication had been left on her desk, and she had admitted she forgot to follow up on the medication and forgot to do a handover before going on annual leave.
Allegations not properly investigated
Authority member Natasha Szeto said SPCA did not fully or fairly investigate the allegations.
She noted the staff member was not given a full list of specific missed treatments until after she had discussed it at least twice with her manager. That meant she was confused about which medications were being talked about and whether the issue had been resolved.
Szeto said the SPCA did not sufficiently investigation the allegations regarding the ear drops because it never established the medicine was prescribed, and did not confirm the medication was placed on her desk, or when.
It did not confirm when the medication was discovered and why and did not confirm the custom and practice in relation to follow-up from vet visits. The spreadsheet where prescriptions were recorded was not checked.
Szeto said there was no evidence alternatives to dismissal had been considered.
For the complainant, the impact of the job loss was "devastating". As a vet nurse, it had been a dream job.
While she had found other work, it was in a different field and paying minimum wage.
Szeto said compensation of $20,000 was appropriate.
The SPCA argued it was a charitable organisation reliant on donations and funding and this could damage it and have an impact on its charitable purpose.
But Szeto said there was insufficient evidence of this.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
