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

Deciding to Wind Up? Observations on winding-up a trust from a recent High Court case
A trust can be a hassle and expensive to maintain.  So, it is not unusual for clients to reflect on whether a trust should be maintained. When settlors, Bert and Diana Queenin, decided to wind up the...
24.03.2025 Posted in Private Wealth
Mediation wide BW
Employment Law’s Dispute Resolution Process – Mediation
Navigating the dispute resolution process in the employment jurisdiction can be tricky. This article aims to spell out the key considerations for those involved in or contemplating mediation, which is...
24.03.2025 Posted in Employment
empty wallet finance concept
Amendment to the Crimes Act 1961: Intentionally not paying employees their wages now deemed theft
An amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes Act) – the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill has been passed by Parliament and received Royal assent. It is now an enforceable provision of th...
14.03.2025 Posted in Employment
Time’s Up: Late Redelivery and the Assessment of Damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company
The English Commercial Court gave an instructive judgment on the assessment of damages in Hapag Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company; an appeal brou...
11.03.2025 Posted in Trade and Transport
Team Hands in small
Cartel conduct: Do not pass “GO”, go directly to jail
Until 8 April 2021, cartel conduct was punishable only by civil penalty in New Zealand.  In R v Kumar [2024] NZHC 3955 the High Court imposed the first criminal convictions and sentences for cartel c...
06.03.2025 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Employment
2025 Insights: Proposed Legislative Changes and Employment Team Update
Team update and proposed legislative change – hello from the Hesketh Henry Employment Law Team 2025. Click here
20.02.2025
photo  dbe
When Sweet Turns Sour: The Costly Consequences of Contamination
The New Zealand Sugar Company (NZSC), trading as Chelsea Sugar, recently found itself in hot water after being fined nearly $149,500 by the District Court due to a prosecution brought by the Ministry ...
19.02.2025 Posted in Insurance & Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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