Full Breakdown
Inland Revenue Medical Dismissal Deemed Unjustified but Full Compensation Refused
6/20/2026, 12:56:53 PM
Core Event: Unjustified Termination on Medical Grounds
A senior Inland Revenue (IR) employee with more than a decade of service was dismissed on medical grounds after a staged return-to-work plan for major depression and newly diagnosed fibromyalgia failed. An employment tribunal concluded the dismissal was unjustified, yet the employee’s request for reinstatement and full compensation was denied.
Background & Context: Legal and Policy Framework
Recent changes to New Zealand employment law require employers to weigh employee conduct more heavily when assessing remedies for dismissal. IR’s own illness-and-rehabilitation guidelines mandate gathering medical evidence before deciding on medical retirement. The tribunal found IR generally followed these guidelines but judged the overall process procedurally unfair.
Key Figures & Groups
- Employee – name suppressed, long-term supervisory staff in a busy call centre.
- Fuiava – senior IR official who commented on the case.
- Group Lead – IR manager who signed the termination letter.
- Union Representative – present at the December 4 meeting.
- Psychiatrist – treated the employee; withdrew from practice before responding to IR’s final inquiry.
Timeline of the Case
- Mar–Sep 2024: Employee submits eight medical certificates for severe burnout and depressive episode.
- Oct 2024: Psychiatrist recommends a staged return; employee works three half-days/week, then full-time on Oct 29, but calls in sick Oct 30.
- Nov 1: Ninth certificate advises leave until Nov 30 for relapse.
- Nov 8: Certificate notes improvement and suggests a structured return in Jan 2025.
- Nov 29: IR informs employee it is considering termination on medical grounds.
- Dec 4: Meeting with IR, union rep, and employee to discuss medical retirement.
- Dec 16: IR confirms termination, citing lack of confidence in sustained work capacity.
- Post-Dec 2024: Tribunal rules dismissal unjustified but declines reinstatement and full compensation.
Data & Statistics
- Employment tenure: >10 years.
- Medical certificates submitted: 10 (eight March–Sept, one Nov 1, one Nov 8).
- Compensation sought: Not disclosed; tribunal declined full award.
Why It Matters: Implications for Public-Sector Employment
The case highlights tensions between employee health accommodations and procedural fairness under evolving employment law. It underscores the need for clear communication, timely medical input, and the opportunity for employees to respond to adverse remarks before termination decisions are finalized.
Official Statements & Responses
- IR’s Fuiava stated the employee’s October return “was not successful” and that a fair employer would have allowed a response to final concerns.
- The group lead asserted no confidence the employee could sustain meaningful work.
- An IR spokesperson declined comment to NZME.
Criticism & Opposition
The employee described references to family-life difficulties in the termination letter as “blatantly wrong, offensive, deeply hurtful and grossly insulting.” Union representatives questioned the adequacy of the employer’s empathy and the lack of a chance to address the alleged remarks before dismissal.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The psychiatrist who initially guided the return-to-work plan left practice and did not answer IR’s follow-up query, leaving medical assessments incomplete.
- The tribunal’s decision on compensation lacks public detail, creating uncertainty about the financial remedy for procedural unfairness.
Verbatim Quotes
- “It was [the employee’s] decision to return to work in October 2024, which only resulted in a further relapse of their depression for which the IR is not at fault,” — Fuiava, IR official
- “blatantly wrong, offensive, deeply hurtful and grossly insulting” — Employee (name suppressed)
- “ill-considered and lack empathy” — Fuiava, IR official
- “Given what was at stake for [the employee] the defect here was not minor but significant and resulted in their being treated unfairly.” — Fuiava, IR official
- “Fuiava said a fair and reasonable employer would have given the employee a chance to respond to its final concerns before deciding to terminate employment.” — Fuiava, IR official
What’s Next
The employee may pursue further legal review of the compensation decision. IR is expected to examine its medical-retirement procedures, particularly the timing of employee consultations and reliance on external medical advice, to mitigate future procedural unfairness claims.
