The solo mother of five children was left in financial hardship and stress after her previous employer, a Northland childcare centre, gave an unfavorable reference (file photo).

A childcare centre must pay a former employee $3000 in damages for breaching her privacy by giving her a bad job reference which saw her miss out on a job.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal ordered Katui Early Childhood Learning Centre in Northland to pay Dana Gin-Cowan $3000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, according to a decision released last week.

Gin-Cowan was employed at the centre between 2010 and 2015, the decision said.

Difficulties arose between Gin-Cowan and the centre's management, with disciplinary meetings over a number of issues including her failure to follow reasonable instructions and accusations she was making personal use of the photocopier.

READ MORE:

* Worker dismissed after a week's work awarded $26,500

* Should the Employment Relations Authority name bad bosses but hide the identity of exploited workers?

* The dark side of the Employment Relations Authority process

Gin-Cowan entered into a de facto relationship with the son of the husband and wife directors of the centre, Mr and Mrs Matthews. Her relationship with the Matthews became difficult after she and their son had an "acrimonious" separation.

Around that time, a "serious allegation" about Gin-Cowan was reported to Mr Matthews by a member of the public.

Gin-Cowan had one meeting with the centre management about the allegation, but didn't attend a follow-up meeting.

In early 2015, she learnt of a job opportunity at the MUMA early childhood centre in Māngere, south Auckland.

Gin-Cowan attended an interview for the job and the next day she was given an individual employment agreement, which she signed. The agreement wasn't signed by anyone at the centre and although Gin-Cowan now believed she was employed there, the centre disputed that.

In February 2015, she resigned to take up what she thought was her new position but the management at Katui decided not to give her a reference because of her unsatisfactory work performance.

After Gin-Cowan signed her employment agreement, MUMA contacted her asking her for a curriculum vitae. She put one together in haste, naming the manager at Katui as her referee and providing the centre's phone number as the contact number for the manager.



When the Māngere centre staff rang Katui, the manager Gin-Cowan had selected as her referee was on sick leave.

The acting manager answered the phone and said she and Gin-Cowan did not get on, she would not provide a reference for her, and she would not re-employ her. She then gave out a phone number for the Matthews.

The Māngere staff member rang Mrs Matthews, who said Gin-Cowan was often late to work, was unreliable and had unsatisfactory work habits, according to the staff member's evidence.



Gin-Cowan travelled to Auckland in February 2015 thinking that she would be starting work at the Māngere centre that day.

But once she arrived, staff told her that her references hadn't been favourable and the centre wouldn't proceed with her employment.

The solo mother of five children then faced financial hardship and stress in trying to provide for her kids.

The tribunal found Katui's bad reference stopped Gin-Cowan's employment with MUMA and she lost the ability to provide a referee of her choice for the job. It concluding this constituted a loss under the Privacy Act.

The tribunal found Gin-Cowan's humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to her feelings was caused by a minor breach in privacy under Principle 11 of the Privacy Act. That states any agency that holds personal information shouldn't disclose it unless it believes the disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned.

Katui was ordered to pay Gin-Cowan $3000 and costs were reserved.