In a December 2025 Employment Court (Court) decision, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) mishandled a meeting with an employee and was ordered to pay $15,000 in compensation for an unjustified disadvantage grievance.
The case is a pertinent reminder for employers of the importance of procedural fairness and the risks of even well-intentioned informality.
Background
YFR, the plaintiff employee, was neurodivergent and experienced mental health issues, which she had previously worked with her employer to manage. However, she was known to become overwhelmed and lash out. When she lost a new job opportunity due to a poor reference, she angrily messaged her manager and called her a “backstabber”.
She regained perspective and apologised the following day, but shortly afterwards received a meeting invitation from two senior managers. They said they were concerned about her wellbeing and asked her to attend a 15 minute “catch up” the next morning.
At the meeting, YFR was told she had frightened and upset the manager, and that their relationship had been damaged. She was given the option of taking leave until her fixed term agreement ended in three weeks or taking leave until a disciplinary meeting could be held to address the messages.
RBNZ’s actions in relation to this single meeting were held to be inconsistent with its obligations of good faith and, in particular, the requirement to be active and constructive in maintaining a productive employment relationship. The Court took issue with the misleading meeting invitation and the lack of due process, finding that YFR had been unjustifiably disadvantaged.
Misleading meeting invitation
The Court found that RBNZ intended to make a significant proposal and raise concerns about YFR’s behaviour, none of which was apparent from the meeting invitation.
YFR had no time to prepare and no indication that she should bring a support person or legal representative. Predictably, she became upset. The way the meeting was arranged was particularly unfair given RBNZ’s knowledge of YFR’s vulnerability, which was exacerbated by the absence of a support person.
No due process
The Court also found that RBNZ had effectively predetermined the outcome of the meeting, namely that YFR would go on leave afterwards.
RBNZ took the position that YFR’s relationship with her manager was so damaged that she could not continue working with her until a disciplinary process had taken place. This conclusion was reached without any proper process and was therefore described by the Court as “premature and unjustified”. RBNZ failed to observe principles of natural justice.
Conclusion
As a result, RBNZ was ordered to pay YFR compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings in respect of the disadvantage, as well as lost wages until the end of her fixed term agreement. In assessing the award, the Court took into account YFR’s pre-existing vulnerability, particularly given her employer’s awareness of it.
This case provides several valuable reminders for employers, including:
- to be transparent and follow due process when addressing issues with employees;
- to be clear in a meeting invitation about what will be discussed and the possible outcomes;
- that an employee has a right to be represented or accompanied by a support person at a meeting that might adversely affect their employment; and
- that an employee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns and a genuine opportunity to explain themselves
RBNZ denied these rights by downplaying the nature of the meeting and predetermining its outcome. Failing to observe these fundamentals can expose employers to unnecessary legal and financial risk, even where the underlying concerns are genuine.
We assist employers and employees to navigate the difficult situations that arise when an employment relationship has broken down. If you require assistance, please get in contact with our expert employment team.
Author: Summer Clerk, Evelynn Turin
