The University of Otago has been ordered to pay a former employee $8717 after she was ''unjustifiably dismissed''.
The employee, Dr Lisa Turner, was a part-time professional practice fellow in the university's Department of Psychological Medicine.
The dispute Dr Turner brought to the Employment Relations Authority is the second originating from that department in the past five years, and the sixth where the university was found to be - at least partly - at fault.
For the same time period, the University of Auckland - which has about 1000 more staff members than Otago - was found at fault in two ERA cases.
Department of Psychological Medicine academic Dr Chris Gale said yesterday that should raise questions about the university's human resources department.
''Why is it that the advice that [the university is] getting means they're being caned by employment court?''
In an emailed statement, university HR director Kevin Seales said any allegations of problems with the HR department were ''factually incorrect''.
Dr Turner's ERA case originated from a discussion in 2012 over room changes for the classes she taught, which left her feeling ''rather undervalued and a bit pushed around'', according to an email she sent to head of department Prof Paul Glue at the time.
A disagreement then arose over a ''video-based teaching'' method Dr Turner had developed.
The video-based teaching, in her opinion, was something she did voluntarily and decided was within her right to ''withhold'' because of how she felt she was being treated.
Prof Glue disagreed that the teaching was voluntary, and insisted Dr Turner continue to do it.
Her refusal to do so triggered a university response that eventually led to her dismissal.
Employment Relations Authority member Christine Hickey, who handed down the decision, found that the university was not at fault in expecting Dr Turner to continue teaching as she had been, nor for disciplining Dr Turner when she did not.
However, Ms Hickey also found that the university failed to keep records of information about Dr Turner's possible dismissal and/or provide that information to her, which meant Dr Turner did not have a ''reasonable opportunity'' to respond.
That, ''meant that how the university acted was not how a fair and reasonable employer could have acted''.
Dr Turner's case will also be heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal on October 12 under the 1993 Privacy Act to determine whether the university's actions were in compliance with the Act.
Dr Turner said she was ''pleased'' with the ERA decision and that her case would be considered after she brought it to the HRRT.
In response to questions about Dr Turner's case, Mr Seales said ''the university acknowledges that the authority considers that there were aspects of the procedure used to dismiss Dr Turner that could have been done better''.
He said the university would not appeal the decision.
The previous case involving a Department of Psychological Medicine employee, brought to the ERA in 2010, was a dispute between the university and Dr Jane Millichamp.
In Dr Millichamp's case, the university was found to have breached ''good faith and natural justice'' during the decision-making process around her demotion, because Dr Millichamp was not given the opportunity to see and reply to information pertaining to decisions made about the future of her employment.
The university was told to meet Dr Millichamp and reconsider the matter ''in accordance with natural justice and good faith obligations'' in the 2012 ERA decision.
Mr Seales did not confirm whether such a meeting had taken place, saying only ''the university does not believe it is appropriate to discuss issues relating to existing staff''.
Warren Forster, Dr Turner's lawyer in the ERA case, said the case reflected ''a history of problems with record-keeping and provision of information'' at the university.
''The university will need to address those problems,'' he said.
