Suspension is sometimes necessary, but it is never a harmless step. This guide explains the legal tests for suspension in New Zealand, and when a suspension becomes an unjustified disadvantage personal grievance.
Suspension is a serious step, not a punishment. An employer ordinarily needs a proper reason and fair process, and the suspension should last no longer than reasonably necessary for the investigation or risk being managed.
Being told to leave work while allegations are investigated can have an immediate effect on reputation, income, duties and workplace relationships. Suspension is not supposed to be disciplinary punishment in advance. It should be used only where there is a proper reason for removing the employee from the workplace while the underlying issue is dealt with.
Common examples include a genuine concern that the employee's continued presence could compromise an investigation, interfere with evidence or witnesses, create further workplace problems, or pose a material health and safety risk. The employer should consider the actual circumstances rather than treating suspension as automatic whenever a serious allegation is made.
Ordinarily, the employer should identify the reason suspension is being considered and give the employee an opportunity to comment before deciding. There can be exceptional situations requiring immediate action, particularly where an immediate safety or evidence risk exists, but that does not turn suspension into an unrestricted management power.
Suspension should ordinarily be on full pay. An unpaid suspension requires a proper contractual basis and should be examined carefully. Even paid suspension can still be prejudicial if there was no sufficient reason, the process was unfair, the employee was effectively sidelined indefinitely, or the employer allowed the suspension to become punitive.
There is no universal number of days. The length should relate to what genuinely needs to be investigated or what risk is being controlled. Unexplained delay, repeated extensions or leaving an employee suspended while little happens can become important when assessing whether the employer acted fairly and reasonably.
An unjustified suspension can amount to an unjustified disadvantage. If the suspension contributes to a later dismissal or resignation, the entire sequence may also become relevant to an unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal claim.
Suspension is sometimes necessary, but it is never a harmless step. This guide explains the legal tests for suspension in New Zealand, and when a suspension becomes an unjustified disadvantage personal grievance.
Auckland Transport was justified in dismissing FHE for serious misconduct, but it effectively suspended him for two days before completing a fair consultation process. The ERA upheld the dismissal, found the initial suspension caused unjustified disadvantage, and awarded $3,000 compensation.
JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...
Cardinal Logistics Limited dismissed the Applicant after he refused a drug and alcohol test, but the ERA found Cardinal did not establish genuine and reasonable grounds for requiring that test. Cardinal let him keep driving for about two hours after the alleged safety complaint, failed to verify the allegation, and the dismissal and suspension were found unjustified.
A sales manager was put on 'special leave' while four bullying/harassment complaints were being investigated, but his phone and laptop were taken and he was removed from the workplace without prior consultation. Five days later he was dismissed for serious misconduct without being given the...
A chef at Coffee Studio was suspended by WeChat without notice or clarification of pay, then ignored when he asked for a meeting and leave records. While on ACC leave for a wrist injury, he was given redundancy notice without consultation. The ERA upheld unjustified disadvantage and unjustified...
An anonymised Christchurch ERA determination where the Authority found constructive dismissal after an unfair suspension, a misleading complaint outcome, and a disciplinary process that did not fairly disclose the case the employee had to meet.
A dairy farm senior assistant disclosed neurodiversity conditions and a medicinal cannabis prescription before starting work. After disputes over contract terms and leave/tenancy issues, the employer suspended him indefinitely on vague health and safety grounds and then went silent for months....