A former SPCA worker sacked for alleged serious misconduct has been awarded $29,000 in compensation and back pay after flaws were found in the dismissal process that left the worker devastated. 

Jasmine De Groot had worked for the animal welfare charity since 2017 until she was dismissed in late 2023. 

The SPCA said its decision to dismiss her was justified for reasons including that she had failed to record treatments given to animals in her care and failed to administer prescribed medication to a dog, causing prolonged recovery time and pain. 

It said the actions amounted to serious misconduct. 

De Groot argued otherwise and neither did her employer have evidence to justify any such finding. 

The Employment Relations Authority found in De Groot’s favour, after accepting her dismissal was disproportionate to the circumstances, and the SPCA had “closed its mind” to considering alternatives. 

ERA member Natasha Szeto said in her decision last month the SPCA did not fully and fairly investigate the allegations against De Groot or properly raise the concerns it had with her before dismissing her. 

While it gave her ample opportunity to engage with the process and provide feedback, it did not fully and genuinely consider all of her explanations, which were not the actions of a fair and reasonable employer, Szeto said. 

She said based on the evidence, the impact of losing a job in a sector with a deeply held ethos of caring for animals would be devastating for the qualified vet nurse, Szeto said. 

SPCA chief executive Todd Westwood said in a statement to NZME the organisation was disappointed with the decision, but preferred to focus its energy on its purpose of looking after sick, injured, abused and vulnerable animals in need rather than relitigate the decision through any appeal. 

“For that reason, we will accept the decision, move on, and continue our work to improve the lives of animals in Aotearoa,” he said. 

The beginnings of a ‘dream job’ 

De Groot began working for the SPCA in December 2017 as a kennel supervisor and volunteer coordinator. After about five years she was promoted to acting team leader when her manager went on parental leave. 

During this time she took a dog home in a fostering arrangement, which was not a requirement of her employment, but was described as being a fairly typical arrangement for employees and volunteers. 

Such arrangements usually required a separate fostering agreement to be signed, but on this occasion, De Groot did not sign one. 

When she returned the fostered dog to the SPCA in early January 2023, the dog had failed to put on the required weight. De Groot had left the dog in her neighbour’s care while she went on leave and other dogs might have taken its food. 

She was invited to a disciplinary meeting about possible breaches of her employment agreement concerning the care and welfare of animals. 

The following month she was told the allegation of misconduct had been upheld and was issued with a formal written warning. 

De Groot stepped down from her acting team leader role, returned to her supervisor/coordinator position, and was put on a six-week performance improvement plan. 

Her job title and responsibilities changed after a restructuring in May 2023, but the systems and processes started getting on top of De Groot, the ERA said. 

She shared an office with her manager who was said to be frequently in closed-door meetings which meant De Groot could not access her computer. 

That meant she was unable to record the treatments she had administered, such as flea and worm treatments, which eventually came to her manager’s attention. 

First steps towards ‘devastating dismissal’ 

In August 2023 De Groot met with her manager to discuss her concerns. 

The manager then summarised her concerns in a detailed and lengthy email. 

A few weeks later she was invited to another meeting, scheduled for October to accommodate De Groot’s leave at the time. 

While she was on a break the SPCA added a further allegation to the four concerns it wanted to raise, including that she was twice late for work and that she had failed to administer or record standard worming and flea treatments on at least 10 occasions. 

The most serious allegation related to failing to administer prescribed medication to the dog examined by a vet. 

Szeto said from De Groot’s perspective, the meeting went poorly. She felt confronted by the questions and could not understand why the issue around her failure to record treatments had been being raised again. 

De Groot accepted she failed to record some standard flea and worming treatments, but thought this had been resolved with her manager. 

A formal disciplinary meeting was then held, and on October 30, 2023, three days after De Groot’s manager left the organisation, the SPCA advised De Groot of a preliminary outcome, which was summary dismissal. 

Szeto said the SPCA’s action in allowing or requiring De Groot to continue to work between her disciplinary meeting on October 19 and her summary dismissal on November 20 was inconsistent with its assessment of the gravity of the allegations. 

She said based on the evidence of the impact of the dismissal on De Groot, $20,000 in compensation was appropriate, plus $9192 in lost wages. 

Szeto said no evidence was provided to support the SPCA’s submission that any order for remedies would likely damage the organisation unfairly or unnecessarily and impact its charitable purpose. 

Attempts have been made to reach De Groot, including via the legal firm that represented her. 

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.