Informal Meetings with Costly Consequences: Case Law Update

 YFR v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [2025] NZEmpC 275 

A recent case YFR v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [2025] NZEmpC 275) is a cautionary tale around holding an ‘Ïnformal’ Meeting when the real nature of the meeting was disciplinary in nature, despite a well-intentioned employer being concerned about the employee’s wellbeing. 

Background

YFR was employed on a fixed term employment agreement that was nearing its end as a Payments and Clearance officer in Auckland (2023-2025 by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ). YFR was neurodivergent and experienced mental health issues that included ADHD and had previously worked with her employer to manage these. At times she became overwhelmed and lashed out. When she lost a new job opportunity due to a poor reference, she angrily messaged her manager and called her a “backstabber”.

She apologised the following day, but shortly afterwards received a meeting invitation from two senior managers. They said they were concerned about her wellbeing and asked her to attend a 15 minute “catch up” the next morning.

At the meeting, YFR was told she had frightened and upset the manager, and that their relationship had been damaged. She was given the option of taking leave until her fixed term agreement ended in three weeks or taking leave until a disciplinary meeting could be held to address the messages.

Findings

RBNZ’s actions in relation to this single meeting were held to be inconsistent with its obligations of good faith and the requirement to be active and constructive in maintaining a productive employment relationship. The Court took issue with the misleading meeting invitation and the lack of due process, finding that YFR had been unjustifiably disadvantaged.

The Court found that RBNZ raised concerns about YFR’s behaviour and introduced a proposal to finish her fixed term early, none of which was apparent from the meeting invitation.

YFR had no time to prepare or informed that she should bring a support person or legal representative. Predictably, she became upset. The way the meeting was arranged was particularly unfair given RBNZ’s knowledge of YFR’s vulnerability, which was exacerbated by the absence of a support person.

The Court also found that RBNZ had effectively predetermined the outcome of the meeting, namely that YFR would go on leave afterwards. RBNZ argued YFR’s relationship with her manager was so damaged that she could not continue working with her until a disciplinary process had taken place. This conclusion was reached without any proper process and was therefore described by the Court as “premature and unjustified”.

Decision & Penalties

The Employment Court found YFR had been unjustifiably disadvantaged.

RBNZ was ordered to pay $15,000 in damages for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings as well as lost wages until the end of her fixed term agreement. In assessing the award, the Court considered YFR’s pre-existing vulnerability, particularly given her employer’s awareness of it. This was reduced by 15% to approximately $12,000–$12,750 based on contributory conduct.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Be transparent and follow due process when addressing issues with employees
2. Be clear in a meeting invitation about what will be discussed and communicate possible outcomes to the employee
3. Employees have the right to be represented or have a support person at a meeting that might impact their employment
4. An employee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns and a genuine opportunity to explain themselves. RBNZ denied these rights by downplaying the nature of the meeting and predetermining its outcome.

Support

For more information and specialist avice in this area, please contact me at hradvice@businesscanterbury.co.nz