Sanction imposed for breach of a COVID-19 related health direction

The employee applied to us for review because they considered the sanction decision maker had not fairly taken into account their mitigating circumstances.

The employee explained they were suffering from an acute mental health condition, and had left their home in an act of self-protection, went for a short drive, then returned home. The employee described their behaviour as uncharacteristic, and attributable to their acute mental health condition.

The conduct came to their agency’s attention following reports from colleagues.

When we review a sanction decision, we note the main purpose of a sanction is to maintain proper standards of conduct, rather than to punish an employee. A sanction may also act as a deterrent to other employees and should provide a clear message to the employee about the seriousness of their behaviour. We also note that a sanction should be proportionate to the nature of the misconduct, and not too severe. If a sanction is too severe, it will be seen as unfair and may be counterproductive. We also note that a sanction that is too lenient may not help to correct inappropriate behaviour.

In this case, we noted there were significant mitigating factors to explain the employee’s behaviour. This included the stress and anxiety they were experiencing due to COVID-19 and home isolation, as well as their pre-existing mental health condition. We also noted the employee’s otherwise good employment record, and that the behaviour was uncharacteristic. We also noted that the employee had not been careless or reckless in regards to public safety.

We balanced these mitigating factors with factors which increased the seriousness of the employee's behaviour. This included that the conduct was highly relevant to the employee’s role within their agency, and to the role and function of the agency more broadly. We considered the employee’s actions put the agency’s reputation at risk, particularly during the serious public health crisis of COVID-19.

We considered a small financial penalty was warranted to act as a deterrent to future behaviour, and to show that the agency expects its employees to comply with public health directives in all circumstances.

We recommended the agency confirm the decision.