23.07.2018

The Tweet you don’t want to see …..

Finding out you've been fired from your high profile job via the internet seems insensitive

Several days ago, President Trump announced to 49 millions followers on Twitter that he was replacing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with a new appointment, former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Reports in the media have stated that Mr Tillerson became aware of his dismissal by way of the tweet, and that President Trump had called him around 3 hours after the tweet had appeared.

Finding out you’ve been fired from your high profile job via the internet seems insensitive, to say the least. Of course, US employment law is a different beast, but if Mr Trump had wanted to dismiss Mr Tillerson in NZ, what should he have done?

Firstly, there would have needed to be a substantive reason for the dismissal. This could have been performance or misconduct related. If there were performance, or lower level misconduct issues, these concerns should have been the subject of graduated warning process, allowing an opportunity to improve, before any dismissal was contemplated. Even if there had been serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal (for example, acts of insubordination such as publically calling the boss a ‘moron’), the employer would still need to follow a fair process.

The test for justification in New Zealand is whether the employer’s actions (e.g. dismissing someone) and how the employer acted (i.e. how they went about the dismissal) were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. At a bare minimum, the employer will need to comply with natural justice requirements which requires the employer to:

Investigate the concerns or allegations (to make sure they have some basis or credence);

  • Put the allegations or concerns to the employee (with all the relevant information);
  • Give the employee a reasonable opportunity to respond to those concerns; and
  • Genuinely consider the employee’s response before taking action.

If dismissal is contemplated, the employer needs to make that clear to the employee, and allow the employee to provide comment or suggested alternatives, to the dismissal.

Judging from the media reports (and cognisant of the ever-present danger of “Fake News”) President Trump’s actions look to have fallen far short of the ‘reasonable employer’ test in New Zealand and are far closer to his infamous “you’re fired” in his ‘The Apprentice’ appearances. It appears that the allegations (whatever they were) were not put to Mr Tillerson, he was not given an opportunity to respond, and the employer did not consider the employee’s response before taking action. Notifying the public of the dismissal, before the employee, is very unlikely to meet the ‘fair and reasonable employer’ test in New Zealand, and raises interesting privacy issues.

We shouldn’t judge an American situation by New Zealand standards, but what we can do, is to realise that, in New Zealand employment law at least, both justification and process matter.

If you need help with an employment process, please give us a call. We’re happy to help you avoid any comparisons with Mr Trump.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Bereavement Leave Confirmed for Miscarriages and Stillbirths 
New Zealand has become the second country in the world to pass legislation that provides bereavement leave for mothers and their partners after a miscarriage or stillbirth.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Court of Appeal Overturns Employment Court’s Decision in Tourism Holdings
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Tourism Holdings) is the first decision in which the Employment Court considered section 8(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act). The Court of Appeal has recently overturned this decision.
26.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Guarantees must be in writing and signed to be enforceable
For a guarantee to be enforceable, the requirements set out in section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 (Act) must be strictly complied with.  This is what the NZSC held in Brougham v Regan. The key i...
19.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice
UK Supreme Court Delivers Decision on Uber Driver Employment Status
The distinction between employee and independent contractor can be complex, particularly where the nature of the business model blurs the lines of standard employment practices.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Holidays Act Overhaul – Taskforce Recommendations
There have been calls for an amendment of the Holidays Act 2003 (Act) for some time.
16.03.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Employment Law
Unwanted Land Covenants and Easements: Seeking a Court Order
The Supreme Court recently considered an application by Synlait Milk to modify a land covenant restricting the burdened land use to farming, grazing and forestry operation to protect the ability of the benefited land owner to develop a quarry.  This article looks at the circumstances in which the courts might give relief to parties in an application to extinguish or modify a covenant or easement.
15.03.2021 Posted in Property Law
New ICC Arbitration Rules 2021 come into force
The revised International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules for 2021 (2021 Rules) have now come into force and apply to all ICC arbitrations begun after 1 January 2021.  While the new Rules...
10.03.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->