29.03.2018

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
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

UK Supreme Court: Are collateral warranties considered construction contracts?
The UK Supreme Court recently released Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 determining that a collateral warranty used in the constr...
17.09.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
shutterstock
Bowen case part 2 – the ins and outs of the determination
In our last article, we wrote about what protected disclosures are and who can make them. In this article, we discuss the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination, Bowen v Bank of New ...
13.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.