A young woman started working at Hamilton Zoo as an “excited, vibrant and bright student”.
But after a senior manager’s conduct affected her work, Ashleigh Sanders became “withdrawn and fearful of talking to others”.
During her time at the zoo, Sanders raised concerns about micromanagement, unclear processes, limited training opportunities, excessive workloads, animal welfare and the conduct of a senior manager, which she said ultimately left her feeling forced to resign.
Now, as a result of a claim lodged by Sanders to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), she has been awarded $18,000 in compensation.
According to the ERA’s decision, Sanders worked as a zookeeper at Hamilton Zoo, operated by Hamilton City Council (HCC).
After starting on a student placement, she became a permanent employee and later moved from part-time to fulltime work.
During her time at the zoo, she worked across several sections, including ungulates, natives and primates, and said she was often unclear about who she was reporting to.
Concerns grow at zoo
The zoo said some of the moves were at Sanders’ request after she was dissatisfied with her team leader or manager in certain teams.
She said she was concerned about animal treatment and welfare on several occasions but found responses to those concerns unsatisfactory, which was distressing for her.
Sanders said there were issues with short-staffing, meaning it was hard to get time off, and rosters were often announced late, so staff did not necessarily know where in the zoo they would be working the following day.
A new senior manager, who has name suppression, began working at the zoo and changed the working environment and management style, Sanders told the authority.
One change initiated by the manager was the addition of extra animal encounter sessions for customers, which Sanders saw as adding considerably to the workload of keepers without additional staff.
The man was later promoted to a more senior role and Sanders told the authority that was when he began selecting people to communicate with privately, including her.
A climate of fear
She said he often approached her when she was alone and questioned her in what she described as a “spy-like” manner, creating a “pseudo-safe place” that encouraged staff to disclose personal information.
One of her colleagues described him to the authority as “grooming” people he knew he could control and working to get rid of people he could not control, creating a climate of fear.
Sanders described a culture in which staff did not know who was watching them or passing information on to management and, as a result, she did not feel safe at work.
She recalled he asked her for private information about people and rewarded those who provided it with work opportunities when the information proved useful.
After some time, he started texting Sanders late at night, initially about work, then asking her out for coffee and whether she missed him, accompanied by a wink-face emoji, she told the authority.
She felt the behaviour escalated when she separated from her boyfriend, who also worked at the zoo.
Sanders told the authority the boss would tell her things about her ex-boyfriend’s work performance.
In an email to a friend, she said she felt her career progression had been “sabotaged” by the manager because of her dating someone who worked at the zoo.
About seven months after the manager’s employment with HCC ended, Sanders moved permanently to the primates team.
Despite morale at the zoo improving, she was unhappy and resigned seven months later.
She told the authority she had sent an email to HCC outlining her workplace concerns, but no one from HCC could confirm seeing it. The email could not be found on the system.
Council human resources and health and safety staff had been aware for some time of concerns raised by zoo staff.
There was evidence from one of Sanders’ co-workers involved with the Public Service Association (PSA) that staff were too fearful to come forward.
HCC chief executive Lance Vervoort said in an emailed statement to NZME the council acknowledged the impact the process may have had on those involved.
“We take the determination seriously and will consider any lessons arising from it. Given the confidential and personal nature of the case, and to respect legal processes, we will not be making any further comment.”
ERA member Nicola Craig ruled Sanders was disadvantaged by the manager’s actions.
“The behaviour comes very close to amounting to sexual harassment,” Craig wrote in the decision.
“There was an insidious element to it.”
Sanders told the authority she did not feel safe challenging or complaining about the manager.
“It is also more likely than not that [the manager] sought to make Ms Sanders give him information about others which he could use against them.”
Sanders’ evidence was that she was disadvantaged when she tried to put boundaries in place.
Constructive dismissal claim fails
But Craig could not establish that Sanders’ resignation was caused by breaches of duty by HCC.
“On the evidence before the authority, it was hard to conclude that Ms Sanders’ unhappiness about how she was treated by [the manager] or concerns about the culture [at that time] … were the cause of her resignation some 14 months after he left.
“Her resignation email is positive about her team leader.
“It is not established that Ms Sanders was constructively dismissed and thus her unjustified dismissal grievance is not successful.”
However, Craig found Sanders had been disadvantaged by the manager’s actions and awarded her $18,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
Open Justice