However, the need to complete a second unplanned trip arose.<\/p>\n
There was a misunderstanding between Watkins and two managers about whether the appropriate processes had been followed to approve the second trip.<\/p>\n
Watkins was required to obtain approval for the second trip from her direct manager, who was unavailable at the time.<\/p>\n
She approached another manager, who asked whether Watkins had spoken to her direct manager. Watkins said \u201cyes\u201d when she had not.<\/p>\n
The trust launched an investigation and raised concerns with Watkins about dishonesty and breaching the client\u2019s risk assessment plan.<\/p>\n
Watkins took sick leave during the investigation, starting on February 7, 2024. She never returned to the workplace.<\/p>\n
The investigation concluded in March 2024 with the trust accepting Watkins\u2019 version of events. No disciplinary action resulted. <\/p>\n
However, Watkins remained on sick leave and did not return to work. <\/p>\n
She provided medical certificates to the trust, which stated she was \u201cmedically incapacitated\u201d.<\/p>\n
However, Employment Relations Authority member Claire English \u2013 who led the authority\u2019s investigation into the dismissal \u2013 said these did not state what illness and disability Watkins suffered from. <\/p>\n
English said Watkins had provided written and in-person evidence stating: \u201cI was not medically incapacitated to work\u201d.<\/p>\n
The trust and Watkins corresponded throughout her eight-month sick leave period. <\/p>\n
The trust advised Watkins in July 2024 it would \u201cconsider whether her employment needed to end due to medical incapacity\u201d as no information had been provided about her return to work.<\/p>\n
Tautoko Mai Sexual Harm Support Services Trust chief executive Brent Gilbert\u2013De Rios. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cincompetence\u201d and that they had \u201clied and colluded\u201d.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
However, the different manager had the opinion Watkins did not explain she was seeking approval for the second trip. She understood Watkins\u2019 direct manager had already approved the required risk assessment.<\/p>\n
The trust agreed to change Watkins\u2019 reporting lines and facilitate mediation; however, it would not change policies or require managers to make statements they disagreed with.<\/p>\n
Watkins refused to return to work as she \u201cremained unhappy\u201d with the trust\u2019s investigation.<\/p>\n
Correspondence continued until the trust terminated Watkins\u2019 employment for medical incapacity on September 11, 2024. <\/p>\n
The trust stated it had experienced financial and operational strain resulting from Watkins\u2019s absence. <\/p>\n
Its evidence said it could no longer hold Watkins\u2019 job open in the absence of clear medical evidence and an indication of a return date.<\/p>\n
English found Watkins\u2019 unjustified dismissal claim was \u201cnot made out\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
English dismissed Watkins\u2019 claims and concluded no remedies were necessary. <\/p>\n
Costs were reserved, with parties being encouraged to resolve any cost issues between themselves.<\/p>\n