News
Smells like Team Spirit
History is never kind to outsiders.
Take Edward Scissorhands for example. An intelligent, kind and loving boy, whose life was all but ruined by the fact that he had garden shears instead of hands.
How he craved for someone who would only accept him - and understand him.
Tragically, albeit on a lesser scale, a forlorn desire to be accepted is not unknown in employment law. All too often, an employee's failure to fit in because of some social flaw results in a case of workplace incompatibility.
For the employer, such cases present difficult issues. Their worker may be technically sound, hard working and loyal - yet there is something that results in an inability for co-workers to work with him or her in harmony.
Some of the difficult issues faced by an employer in this situation were illustrated in the recent decision of the Employment Relations Authority in Ruebe-Donaldson v Sky Network Television Limited (Unreported, 31 March 2006, Employment Relations Authority, Auckland).
Ruebe-Donaldson had been employed in the dispatch office at Sky TV for five years, until her employment ended in February 2002. She had been required to work in a relatively confined office space which she shared with five other people.
In the latter part of 2001 Ruebe-Donaldson's supervisor noticed unpleasant odour in the office. Some of the employees thought that Ruebe-Donaldson might have been the source. The Manager responsible for the dispatch group responded by arranging for the airconditioning to be checked and for a fresh air unit to be installed so that a pleasant fragrance could be circulated.
The complaints, however, continued. Ultimately, one of the female employees from a different area spoke to the women in the dispatch about personal hygiene. There followed some improvement in the odour problem, but unfortunately it worsened after the Christmas break in January 2002.
Finally, in late January 2002, two of Ruebe-Donaldson's co-workers made complaints about her. The complaints were received by Sky TV's personnel officer, who took responsibility for addressing them.
The personnel officer had a conversation with Ruebe-Donaldson, in which she informed her about the fact that complaints had been received about her. Ruebe-Donaldson was overcome by emotion at this revelation. She became upset, and took a period of sick leave.
Subsequently, Ruebe-Donaldson attended a meeting at Sky TV at which she was given an opportunity to respond to the complaints about what was alleged to be her unpleasant odour. Ruebe-Donaldson raised concern about the preparation of the written complaints, and said that she had medical advice that established that she did not have a body odour problem.
The employer followed this meeting by seeking further information from two of the other women in the dispatch area.
There followed a complaint from Ms Ruebe-Donaldson about the process that the employer was following. Amongst other things, Ruebe-Donaldson alleged that the manager responsible for the investigation had proceeded as if the allegations about her were correct - and said that she was not receiving adequate support from her employer. She never returned to work, and subsequently resigned from her job.
Ruebe-Donaldson brought a complaint, alleging that she had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by the employer's investigation. The Authority rejected this claim. It concluded that the complaints about the odour in the dispatch area had been motivated by genuine reasons - and that the employer could not do anything other than investigate. Even though the Authority acknowledged that the circumstances of the investigation were difficult and embarrassing for Ruebe-Donaldson, it concluded that Sky TV was obliged to take into account the interests of all the staff in the dispatch office in investigating the matter.
On this basis, Ruebe-Donaldson's complaint was rejected.
This case illustrates the way in which incompatibility issues can arise out of personal - and sometime embarrassing circumstances. In this case, the employee concerned was guilty neither of misconduct nor poor performance. The allegations about her, however, underpinned a legitimate incompatibility complaint - and had to be investigated by the employer.
Had Ruebe-Donaldson not resigned - and the complaints about the odour problem made out - the employer would have been obliged to pursue the matter, probably in a manner akin to a performance issue (by informing Ruebe-Donaldson about the need for her to address the problem - failing which she could suffer disciplinary consequences).
This case illustrates the difficult circumstances which may confront an employer when an incompatibility situation arises. It may be difficult - and embarrassing - for an employer to take action : but if it does not, complaints may be made by co-workers about the employer's failure to address the issue.
