News
The whistle blower and religious devotion
First published in the Independent, 10 July 2008.
Employment law often provides us with cases that lend themselves to good yarns.
Sometimes it is because we can relate to the facts of the case. Sometimes it is because a principle is involved which might have some application to our own employment situation.
This case of Stiekema v Centurion Management Services Limited (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Auckland, 3 December 2007) concerns a woman who was employed as Centurion's Trust Account Manager and involves a number of different ingredients – each of which may give cause to raise an eyebrow.
This is a tale of whistle blowing gone wrong, of a requirement for employees to attend religious devotion ceremonies, and a result which may leave some wondering.
Jacky Stiekema had worked at Centurion for almost four years. She had a position with a high degree of trust and responsibility. She reported directly to the company's Financial Controller – who was one of the three directors of the business.
In late December 2006 Stiekema had a conversation with Centurion's Office Manager. One of the topics of discussion was the company's practice of requiring employees to attend weekly religious devotion ceremonies. The ceremonies usually involved a staff member preaching on a bible passage, followed by a period of discussion or reflection. The company's position was that these devotions were a component of the weekly staff meeting, and as such attendance was required – but participation in the religious aspects of the ceremony was voluntary.
In the course of her conversation, Stiekema said that she understood an employee had been forced to become a contractor because of a refusal to attend the weekly devotion sessions. She also made allegations that the person who was preaching at the devotion ceremonies had been engaging in fraudulent transactions (the Authority ultimately found the Ms Stiekema had no reasonable basis for making such allegations).
The Office Manager was sufficiently concerned about this conversation that she reported it to the company. The company was also concerned. It accused Stiekema of circulating rumours, and required her to attend a disciplinary meeting.
The conclusion of the company's disciplinary process was a finding that Stiekema had spoken to five staff members concerning allegations of fraud or theft by this other employee. It also found that she hadn't attempted to raise her apparent concerns through other channels – including with the company's auditors, one of the other directors, or to the Financial Controller.
The company also found that, by acting in this way, Stiekema had committed conduct which might bring the company into disrepute. It gave her a final written warning, with stipulations requiring her to attend a regular meeting with the Financial Controller, and requiring that she undertake part-time tertiary study in accounting (with the company to meet any associated costs).
For its part, the Authority also made some comment about the rumour concerning the employee who had become a contractor. It heard evidence from the person concerned, and concluded that there was no substance to the suggestion that he had been forced into accepting a contractor role.
Stiekema did not take kindly to the outcome of the disciplinary process. She resigned from her employment, and said that her health had suffered as a consequence of the findings. She said that she had no other reasonable option to resign – and that she had thus accordingly been constructively dismissed.
The Employment Relations Authority disagreed. It said that Stiekema's decision to resign had not been reasonable.
Along with her other allegations, Stiekema raised an issue about the company's practice of requiring employees to attend the weekly devotion sessions. In response to this matter, the Authority said that it would have had difficulty accepting that Centurion could compel staff to attend the devotional sessions if attendance was contrary to an employee's religious belief.
But in Stiekema's case, the Authority said that it had not been presented with any evidence to suggest that attendance at devotion was contrary to her religious belief. Accordingly, it declined to uphold this aspect of her complaint.
The Authority did, however, find some flaw in aspects of the procedure that Centurion had used to investigate this matter. It took issue with the involvement of one of the company's directors because Stiekema had previously approached him with her different concerns and there was evidence that the two had engaged in some banter about the alleged fraudulent activities of the other employee.
The Authority also took issue with the involvement of a decision-maker in the disciplinary process with whom Stiekema had no opportunity to meet and make her submissions to. Finally, it also took issue with the requirement for Stiekema to attend a tertiary course.
In view of all these different things, the Authority awarded Stiekema $6,000 to compensate her for hurt and humiliation. It did, however, reduce this amount by 50% to take account of Stiekema's contribution to the circumstances which had given rise to her grievance – namely, the circulation of rumours. The Authority said that acting to spread rumours was conduct inappropriate for any employee.
A good story and an interesting case – if only to demonstrate the colourful and varied issues that can arise in the workplace.
