News
Dear employee, please control your boyfriend
First published in the Independent, 19 March 2008.
It is one of those eternal mysteries of life: exactly how do people choose their partners?
Sometimes, it seems that Paula Abdul had it right: Opposites Attract.
Quite often we find that we get along just fine with a colleague at work but cannot seem to relate to their partner.
But when does this become a problem for the employer? And can the employer say something about its employees' partners?
These issues were the subject of consideration by the Employment Relations Authority recently in Christina Morrison v Cova Limited (Unreported, Employment Relations Authority, Auckland, 31 January 2008).
Christina Morrison worked in a café which was owned and managed by Mark Seton. There were two other employees in the café – a couple called Joe and Apple.
The problem started on 5 September 2006 when Morrison's partner, Conrad Wolfgramm, phoned the café to speak to her. Apple answered the phone and called out to Morrison that there was a call for her. Morrison said she was serving a customer at the time, and that by the time she reached the phone, she had missed Wolfgramm's call.
Wolfgramm arrived to pick-up Morrison later that afternoon. While he was in the café, he uttered obscenities at Apple, generally abusing her about the telephone incident. Apple reported the matter to their boss, Seton.
About an hour later, Seton rang Morrison to discuss the incident – but ended up speaking to Wolfgramm. Seton told Wolfgramm to stay away from the café. It seemed that the conversation became unpleasant and obscenities were spoken.
The next step was taken by Seton's wife. She alerted the landlord of the premises to the situation and arranged for a trespass order to be issued to Wolfgramm if he returned to the premises.
Wolfgramm did, however, return to the café – the very next morning when he dropped Morrison off at work. Morrison was sorting out her gear when Wolfgramm walked in to, ostensibly, talk to Seton.
But by the time Morrison got into the café there had been a physical assault. It appears that Wolfgramm had struck Seton – although Wolfgramm claimed that Seton had also struck him. The outcome was a nasty injury to Mr Seton (who sensibly grabbed a pack of frozen berries to stop the swelling in his face) and the involvement of the police – who charged Wolfgramm with assault (although he was eventually discharged without conviction).
So it is apparent that there was a poor relationship between Seton and his employee's partner. But did that have any implications for the employment relationship between Morrison and Seton?
Immediately after the incident, Seton told Morrison that she should leave the café. The Authority later commented that this seemed to be a sensible attempt to impose a "cooling off" period for mutual benefit.
A letter was then sent on behalf of the café to Morrison which, amongst other things, asserted variously that Morrison might have either provoked Wolfgramm's physical attack – or that she had breached an employment obligation by failing to take "corrective action" after it was over.
The letter concluded by informing Morrison that, due to her partner's "violent and aggressive behaviour", she was suspended from her employment.
The letter asked Morrison to provide the café with an explanation regarding her behaviour.
But Morrison took the letter as an indication that she had been dismissed, a conclusion which the Authority thought unreasonable. In fact, the café attempted on several subsequent occasions to elicit a response from Morrison – all to no avail. The Authority found that, at least in this regard, the café had acted reasonably and Morrison had effectively caused her own demise by failing to make contact with the café to discuss the situation.
The Authority did, however, find that Morrison had been illegally suspended from work because the café had not provided her with an opportunity to talk about the prospect before she was actually suspended. In respect of that aspect, it awarded her eight days' lost wages, and $1,500 for humiliation.
So what is the moral of the story?
This case serves as a reminder that the actions of an employee's partner can have implications for them in their employment relationship. In this context, the Authority accepted it was natural for the employer to question its employee's attitudes after the physical assault perpetrated by her partner.
In other words, the employee was tainted by the poor behaviour of her boyfriend. In order to comply with the obligations owed under the employment relationship, she had to take some steps to address that situation with her employer.
But the employer went too far here by summarily suspending the employee from work. Ideally, after the "cooling off" period, the employer should have talked to the employee about a suitable interim arrangement – getting her views before suspending her. It was this procedural flaw that led to the employer's partial demise in this case.
