However, the need to complete a second unplanned trip arose.
There was a misunderstanding between Watkins and two managers about whether the appropriate processes had been followed to approve the second trip.
Watkins was required to obtain approval for the second trip from her direct manager, who was unavailable at the time.
She approached another manager, who asked whether Watkins had spoken to her direct manager. Watkins said “yes” when she had not.
The trust launched an investigation and raised concerns with Watkins about dishonesty and breaching the client’s risk assessment plan.
Watkins took sick leave during the investigation, starting on February 7, 2024. She never returned to the workplace.
The investigation concluded in March 2024 with the trust accepting Watkins’ version of events. No disciplinary action resulted.
However, Watkins remained on sick leave and did not return to work.
She provided medical certificates to the trust, which stated she was “medically incapacitated”.
However, Employment Relations Authority member Claire English – who led the authority’s investigation into the dismissal – said these did not state what illness and disability Watkins suffered from.
English said Watkins had provided written and in-person evidence stating: “I was not medically incapacitated to work”.
The trust and Watkins corresponded throughout her eight-month sick leave period.
The trust advised Watkins in July 2024 it would “consider whether her employment needed to end due to medical incapacity” as no information had been provided about her return to work.
Tautoko Mai Sexual Harm Support Services Trust chief executive Brent Gilbert–De Rios. Photo / Supplied
Watkins claimed the trust had breached good faith, failed to provide a safe workplace, and she opposed the termination of her employment on the basis of medical incapacity.
For Watkins to consider returning to work, she requested the following conditions: her reporting lines be changed, different processes be put in place to her satisfaction, the managers admit their “incompetence” and that they had “lied and colluded”.
Watkins had the view she had communicated to the different manager about approval for the first trip, but was seeking approval for the second trip.
However, the different manager had the opinion Watkins did not explain she was seeking approval for the second trip. She understood Watkins’ direct manager had already approved the required risk assessment.
The trust agreed to change Watkins’ reporting lines and facilitate mediation; however, it would not change policies or require managers to make statements they disagreed with.
Watkins refused to return to work as she “remained unhappy” with the trust’s investigation.
Correspondence continued until the trust terminated Watkins’ employment for medical incapacity on September 11, 2024.
The trust stated it had experienced financial and operational strain resulting from Watkins’s absence.
Its evidence said it could no longer hold Watkins’ job open in the absence of clear medical evidence and an indication of a return date.
English found Watkins’ unjustified dismissal claim was “not made out”.
“She had remained on sick leave for more than eight months without providing a diagnosis or any indication of when she would be able to return to work.
“The trust put her on notice that it was considering termination on the grounds of medical incapacity and the strain her absence was putting on the business, and only terminated her employment after providing her with multiple opportunities to engage with it on this issue.”
English dismissed Watkins’ claims and concluded no remedies were necessary.
Costs were reserved, with parties being encouraged to resolve any cost issues between themselves.
Bijou Johnson is a multimedia journalist based in Bay of Plenty. A passionate writer and reader, she grew up in Tauranga and developed a love for journalism while exploring various disciplines at university. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Classical Studies from Massey University.