The IRS must pay an employee $20,000 in damages after falsely accusing her of serious misconduct in reviewing a taxpayer’s information, the Employment Relations Authority has ruled.
In October 2020, customer service representative Renee Andrews was asked to check a colleague’s work but was not given specific instructions, according to the authority’s finding dated August 26.
As part of the request, Andrews reviewed a client’s information and tax information for the client’s partner, referred to in the provision as Taxpayer A.
The next day, she made comments about it to other employees during a meeting, and to another employee outside the meeting.
READ MORE:
* Paid $7 an hour, no annual vacation for three years – ex farm worker was $93k. guilty
* Driver gets $60k in damages after being fired over lockdown
* Christchurch bar justified to fire duty manager, ERA . finds
An October email pointed to concerns that Andrews told the meeting she had come across a “very famous” type of tax bill, told colleagues she was the curious person she was, checking taxpayer income, giving them the name and The person’s monthly earnings disclosed and may have disclosed earnings data to other employees outside of her current team.
Concerns were raised with Andrews’ team leader’s manager, Christopher Thomson. On November 19, he wrote to Andrews that her actions and comments could amount to serious misconduct.
stuff
Inland Revenue must pay an employee $20,000 after falsely accusing her of serious misconduct, the Employment Relations Authority ruled.
After a disciplinary process, she received a final written warning, valid for 12 months, based on Thomson’s belief that her actions amounted to serious misconduct.
Andrews filed a personal complaint in January 2021, but the Internal Revenue Service (IR) responded that the latest written warning was warranted.
In a letter dated December 21, 2020, Thomson said Andrews had no valid business reason to audit the client’s partner’s income in the previous three years to the extent she had, and it was done without proper authority.
Thomson concluded that Andrews had not disclosed any sensitive information about the earnings, but had checked taxpayer A’s records out of curiosity.
“Mr Thomson reaffirmed his position that Ms Andrews has amended the employment contract, the IR Code of Conduct, the [Tax Administration] Act and the standards of the state sector,” said authority member Philip Cheyne in his determination.
“However, Mr Thomson remained confident that Ms Andrews would carry out her responsibilities in the future without the proven conduct. Mr Thomson confirmed that Ms Andrews would receive a final written warning, valid for 12 months.”
Andrews said “quality control” allowed her to take the actions she took in assessing taxpayer A and consistent with her work practice.
She explained that her use of the word “nosey” at the October meeting referred to the curious approach to her work, and was not intended to imply that her access was inappropriate or for no business reason.
Cheyne said the allegations were serious and Andrews risked instant dismissal if IR could correctly identify serious misconduct.
He felt that IR did not adequately investigate whether Andrews’ actions were inconsistent with her “normal work habit.” He also found that the IRS had not given Andrews all the relevant information and had not fully expressed his concerns.
“I agree with the statement that the real problem was why Ms Andrews went as far as she did in reviewing taxpayer A’s data,” he said.
“Either Ms. Andrews did this out of ‘curiosity’ for no valid business reason, or she performed the assigned task thoroughly in accordance with her usual practice and IR business model.
“Mrs Andrews had a long and impeccable track record. In order to honestly ignore Ms Andrews’ explanation, IR had to fully disclose relevant information and the basis for its concerns.
“IR’s defaults were not minor procedural errors and resulted in Ms Andrews being treated unfairly.
“I think the warning was unjustified and Ms Andrews has a personal complaint.”
Cheyne ordered IR to pay Andrews $20,000 in damages and to remove the reference to the final written warning in her personal file.
Costs were reserved.