The University of Auckland has been ordered to pay $20,000 in damages to employee Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles – setting a significant precedent around employers protecting staff from harassment.
A well-known Covid-19 public commentator, Wiles was subjected to some of the worst criticism of any pandemic commentator which led to concerns about the safety and security of both her and her colleagues. Subsequently, the Employment Court found that the University’s health and safety response to the situation was insufficient and too slow.
The precedent-setting case highlights the importance of employers being proactive with managing risks to the health and safety of their employees, especially for those in public-facing roles.
The details
In the case of Siouxsie Wiles v. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland [2023] NZEmpC 136, the Employment Court (Court) found that the University of Auckland breached its contractual obligations to protect the health and safety of Wiles.
The Court ruled that the University failed to provide adequate protection and support to Wiles amidst the harassment she faced due to her public commentary on Covid-19.
This case serves as a significant reminder of the legal and moral obligations employers have to protect their employees, especially those in high-profile public roles.
Wiles experienced significant harassment and abuse both online and offline. Despite seeking help from the University, she was told her public commentary was not part of her academic duties, and was advised to minimise her public statements until a safety audit was completed.
Wiles filed a personal grievance in August 2021, claiming that the University had failed to meet its health and safety obligations, and had breached its duty to act in good faith as her employer. The case was heard by the Court in November 2023.
Key Findings of the Court:
- Scope of employment: The Court ruled that Wiles’ public commentary on Covid-19 was part of her academic duties. This meant that the University had an obligation to protect her under health and safety legislation.
- Breach of health and safety obligations: The University failed to provide adequate protection and support to Wiles amidst the harassment she faced. The Court found that the University’s approach exacerbated Wiles’ distress rather than alleviating it.
- Good employer obligations: The University breached its contractual obligations to act as a good employer by failing to act in good faith. This included not engaging constructively with Wiles to address her safety concerns and not taking proactive measures to mitigate the risks she faced.
- Criticism of managers: The Court criticised some of the University’s senior managers regarding their attitudes and behaviour toward Wiles, with some managers suggesting that her harassment was due to her social media activities rather than her work. This stance was noted as a significant failure in the University’s response.
The Court ordered the University of Auckland to pay Wiles $20,000 in damages for the unjustifiable disadvantage and distress she suffered.
The judgment underscored the University’s failures and set a precedent for the responsibilities of employers across New Zealand in ensuring the safety and well-being of their employees, especially those who engage with the public on contentious issues.
