When workplace suspension is justified, the consultation and contractual issues employers should consider, and how an unnecessary or unfair suspension can become a separate unjustified-disadvantage 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.
When workplace suspension is justified, the consultation and contractual issues employers should consider, and how an unnecessary or unfair suspension can become a separate unjustified-disadvantage grievance.
Auckland Transport investigated FHE over serious conduct involving a former employee with whom he had been in a relationship. Before completing a fair consultation process over suspension, AT had already effectively removed him from work for two days.
Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.
Philip Moller was dismissed by Cardinal Logistics after refusing a drug and alcohol test said to arise from a safety complaint. The case turned on whether Cardinal had genuine and reasonable grounds to require the test and whether it fairly verified the allegation before suspending and dismissing him.
Brandt Tractor removed sales manager Nicholas Pilcher from the workplace on 'special leave', took his phone and laptop and then dismissed him five days later over four bullying and harassment complaints. He was not given the underlying complaints, even in redacted form, or a genuine chance to answer them.
Haochen Guo was suspended, complained of bullying and was later made redundant while absent on ACC leave. The ERA examined the fairness of the suspension and workplace treatment as well as whether the purported redundancy was genuine and properly consulted on.
OCO resigned after being suspended and put through a disciplinary process by ZUA. The case centred on whether the suspension and investigation were fair and whether the employer's cumulative conduct was serious enough to make the resignation a constructive dismissal.
Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.