‘Treated like garbage’: Staff to get $52k payout for unjustified dismissal

Two former employees have been awarded more than $50,000 after being unjustifiably dismissed by the Pacific Islands Business Development Trust (PIBDT).

The Employment Relations Authority found the Trust failed to follow proper consultation procedures and did not provide enough information to justify the redundancies of John Faitala and Vahanoa Vea in June last year.

Employment advocate Paul Pa’u says the pair were exited from the businesses by way of a “rushed, poorly thought out process”, with their feedback and concerns ignored.

“John and Vahanoa were hardworking, long standing and loyal employees and they did not deserve to be treated in the way that they were by the new CEO.

"As Vahanoa said in her evidence, she felt treated like garbage.

“When they were terminated, it was by email and they were exited without a farewell and were not even offered references.

“This is not the way to treat our people, and it is certainly not the way that employees are treated in New Zealand.”

The Trust has been ordered to pay Faitala a month’s salary, $1,000 for lost benefits, which include the loss of a company phone and vehicle, and $25,000 for humiliation and distress.

Vea will be paid two months’ salary, $1,000 for lost benefits and $25,000 for humiliation and distress.

Faitala said he found the whole process “brutal” and it took a heavy toll on his physical and mental health, and impacted his family and home life.

He said in the first few months after leaving, he felt physically sick after discussing what had happened to him with the redundancy.

Vea experiences migraines which she links to the stress of what happened, and said she felt anxiety, distress and embarrassment during and after the termination of employment.

At the investigation meeting, Pacific Business Trust CEO Mary Los’e expressed regret on behalf of the Trust for the hurt both Faitala and Vea experienced.

But Pa’u said the decision should be a lesson to other businesses.

“PIBDT promotes itself as looking after Pasifika businesses and people. It needs to do a lot better in terms of the way it treats its own employees.

“They need to really look at how they treat our people that happen to work for them.”

The Pacific Business Trust has declined to comment on this matter.

Back story

John Faitala and Vahanoa Vea were made redundant in June 2023 during a business restructuring process. Faitala was general manager and had been with the company since 2020, and Vea since 2018 as Corporate Service Manager.

In February, Mary Los’e was welcomed as CEO but was faced with a raft of challenges: future funding had been put on hold after the Trust failed to meet delivery and reporting targets, and the organisation was relying heavily on contract workers.

A proposal was made to disestablish five roles, including those of Vea and Faitala. Existing staff were to be rated on their performance, experience and skills and then allocated to nine new roles.

Vea has more than a decade of experience in administration, human resources and accounts management. At the end of May, Vea emailed Los’e asking for more information and more time to respond. Vea also asked about transferring to a new role, stating she was looking forward to change and improvement, and would “very much like to be part of the upcoming changes”.

Vea expressed interest in two of the available positions, but was told during an in-person meeting on 16 June she did not have the skills or qualifications needed. The Trust disputed whether she also asked about another available role as Customer Service Manager.

Faitala also had a meeting on the same day, where he asked for a response for his feedback and further clarity on the new roles. He was promised several times there would be a written response. Both were emailed a termination letter later that day.

ERA decision

The Authority’s determination said there was a lack of consideration for the staff members to be redeployed to other positions, and the Trust did not meet its good faith obligations in communication and information sharing during the restructuring process.

Under the employment act, employees must have the opportunity to comment on any redundancy proposal before a decision is finalised.

Employment Relations Authority member Sarah Blick accepts the Trust had good reason to commence an organisation restructure, but did not follow proper procedure.

“I am not satisfied there is a solid foundation of evidence or paper trail to indicate whether the decisions to select the applicants’ roles for redundancy were for genuine commercial reasons.”

Blick said Faitala did not express interest in any roles because he was still attempting to engage in the redundancy process in good faith.

“As a senior manager, he sought to understand the rationale for the restructure. It was also entirely reasonable for him to question how and why his role had been selected for redundancy.”

The Authority said the Trust did not meet its obligation to be constructive and communicative during the process, and failed to respond to the applicants questions in any meaningful way in writing.

“There was no evidence the applicants’ feedback was considered, and neither applicant was given an opportunity to receive further information or redeployment opportunities before their employment was terminated.”