| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 481 |
| Determination date | 18 October 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | P Shaw ; J Cook |
| Parties | Richmond Services Ltd v Bracewell |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Application for injunctive relief granted |
| Abstract | Respondent (Ms Bracewell) employed by applicant (Richmond Services Ltd) as community support worker (Health Care and Social Assistance Sector). Applicant sought injunction directing respondent to return confidential information, and preventing respondent disclosing or using confidential information. Respondent employed to provide day-to-day support to clients with mental health issues. Respondent had concerns client had been sexually assaulted and applicant’s staff had done nothing in response. Respondent referred concerns to applicant’s chief executive officer and Police. Respondent resigned. Respondent claimed entitled to retain confidential information under Protected Disclosures Act 2000 to investigate and remedy serious wrongdoing by applicant.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;INJUNCTION: Authority ordered non-publication of information or details leading to identification of applicant’s clients. Respondent disclosed client information to two persons listed in applicant’s Protected Disclosures Policy. Purpose of Protected Disclosures Act 2000 to facilitate disclosure and investigation of matters of serious wrongdoing in or by an organisation. Facilitation of disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing did not require respondent to retain confidential information about applicant’s clients. Respondent could make complaints without using confidential information and appropriate authority then able to investigate and obtain necessary information. Respondent complained unsuccessfully to Police, Ombudsman and applicant’s chief executive officer. Police determined applicant fulfilled obligations under Crimes Act 1961 and respondent did not have lawful possession of confidential information. Applicant’s psychologist determined client not “vulnerable person”. No client consent to respondent retaining and disclosing client’s information. Probable respondent disclosed confidential information about client to newspaper in flagrant breach of client’s rights. No right for respondent to possess or use confidential information. Application for injunctive relief granted. |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | Crimes Act 1961 s2;Crimes Act 1961 s195;Crimes Act 1961 s195A;Crimes Amendment Act (No 3) 2011;Protected Disclosures Act 2000;Protected Disclosures Act 2000 s3(1);Protected Disclosures Act 2000 s5;Protected Disclosures Act 2000 s6;Protected Disclosures Act 2000 s7;Protected Disclosures Act 2000 s10 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_481.pdf [pdf 166 KB] |