The University of Otago. Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon
An artist and fabricator was fired from her role at the University of Otago after she refused to get the Covid-19 vaccination. Now, the school has to pay her $53,000.
Louisa Baillie's employment ended in "disputed circumstance" after the school introduced a mandatory vaccination policy for its staff.
She was "vaccine hesitant" and had attempted to arrange a working-from-home situation, but her employer declined the request and sacked her.
Baillie then turned to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) claiming the school's move was unjustifiable.
In its decision, released today, the authority upheld her complaint and awarded her $20,000 in compensation and $33,000 in lost wages.
But her counsel, Mary-Jane Thomas, told NZME Baillie was disappointed with the outcome as she had argued for compensation of around $40,000, plus lost wages.
According to the decision, Baillie had been employed by the university in its anatomical sciences education research team as an anatomical model fabricator since 2017.
Her work involved conservation, design and production of anatomy museum models used for teaching and research. Some of her work included helping to rebuild a 2400-year-old Egyptian mummy's face.
During the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020, Baillie worked from home using her own workshop and had materials couriered to her. During the following lockdown, she did the same but concentrated on research tasks as there was less practical work for her to do.
Baillie's work was highly regarded and there was no suggestion that she was anything other than an asset to the university, the decision said.
Then in December 2021, the vice chancellor announced that from January, 2022, the school would "require mandatory vaccinations for its staff, students, contractors, visitors and members of the public to enter its premises".
Baillie emailed her boss and said she was "vaccine hesitant" and requested to be able to work from home, noting she had done so without issue during the lockdowns and had the necessary workshop already.
Her request was bounced to the head of department and human resources and a meeting between Baillie and senior staff was organised where no specific concerns were raised about her ability to work from home.
However, after that meeting her proposal was discussed with various university management, some of whom didn't read Baillie's proposal, before they concluded there wasn't enough work she could continue with from home.
The authority noted in its ruling there was no discussion about other potential work-from-home options and there was evident confusion about how much work Baillie could do outside the office.
A letter was then sent to Baillie two days after the January 10 vaccination deadline stating that "in light of the very small number of activities that it appears you can complete from home, beyond two weeks, a preliminary view is that your employment will be terminated by way of dismissal".
A further meeting occurred with a senior staff member who concluded Baillie's work wasn't critical and, ultimately, her employment ended in March last year.
In submissions to the tribunal, Baillie's lawyers said the university failed to "meaningfully consult" with her before terminating her employment. They said it appeared the decision to fire her was pre-determined and the process was "tainted".
Her lawyers also highlighted what they submitted as confusion and poor communication in the decision-making process.
The university's lawyers argued there were no alternatives to dismissal and that Baillie had failed to identify a reasonable amount of work she could have completed at home.
But authority member David Beck disagreed and noted in the decision that while the university's dismissal process didn't appear to be malicious it was "best described as muddled with too many parties involved at various times and poor communication evident".
"Part of this I accept was due to the timing of when the employment ended and immense pressure on all parties. This does not however, excuse why there was the need to hastily move to dismissing Baillie," Beck said.
Beck said the university failed to properly engage with Baillie and properly explore reasonable work-from-home options.
"I stress this was not an easy decision, as I recognise the immensely difficult pressures placed upon the university by the Covid-19 outbreak, its financial implications and the government's vaccine mandate."
A spokesperson for the university said it is yet to decide if it will appeal the authority's finding.
* This article was originally published by the New Zealand Herald.