News and Publications

In a recent Employment Court case, the University of Auckland has been ordered to pay microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles $20,000 in damages for failure to meet their health and safety obligations as her employer to protect her during the Covid-19 Pandemic.  The case highlights that employers’ obligations can include protecting their staff when they are in the media and facing threats and harassment.

Facts of the Case:

Wiles was a prominent figure during the Covid-19 pandemic for her expertise in microbiology, often commenting in news media. She threats and harassment as a result, including having her personal details shared online, and receiving daily threats of sexual violence on social media.

The University was informed of the issues and Wiles’ concern for her safety as the pandemic continued and initially responded informing academic staff that providing commentary on Covid-19 was not part of their roles. Wiles was targeted in this action and faced questions about her “outside activities”.  She was later advised to decrease her public communications.

Wiles filed complaints against the University of Auckland claiming that as her employer they had not done enough to protect her against the threats and harassment she faced.

The University employed a security firm for a safety and security audit and regularly communicated with Wiles throughout this process. There was no internal review or specific risk assessment for Wiles and the risks to her health and safety that were present.

When the case was brought by Wiles, the University originally submitted that the commentary was not part of her employment and thus not part of its health and safety responsibilities. By the time the case was heard in the court, the University had accepted that Wiles commentary was indeed part of her role.

Held:

The Court held that the University breached its health and safety obligations here by failing to provide adequate protection and support, where Wiles was reasonably entitled to expect the University to have put together a plan to keep her safe in her work.

While the University’s approach may have been deficient in terms of how it was reactive and not expansive enough, the Court recognised that the University had made efforts to comply with its health and safety obligations.

The Court also held that the University breached its statutory duties of good faith, which was also a term of the relevant Collective Agreement.

Wiles was awarded $20,000 as hurt and humiliation compensation for impact of the unjustified disadvantage and breach of contract.

Message for Employers

This case is a message to employers that protecting an employee’s safety may need to stretch above and beyond what is in an existing health and safety plan, with a specific risk assessment and plan needed to address new hazards and any risk arising for particular employees. While the University had an existing health and safety plan, this was found to not be enough to fulfill their obligations as an employer to protect the employee.

In an age of social media, being a prominent figure in the media can open employees to an array of threats and harassment and an employer has obligations to protect their employees who perform their role in the media.

Please get in touch with our team if you have any questions or would like to discuss regarding your health and safety obligations.

Disclaimer: We remind you that while this article provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.

Authors