| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 57A/10 |
| Hearing date | 2 Feb 2010 - 25 Feb 2010 (5 days) |
| Determination date | 28 April 2010 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | K Crossland, G Brant ; J Haigh QC, T Clarke |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Rau v Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant (Mr Rau – employee) claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent who concluded applicant corresponded with newspaper reporter (“R”) – Respondent governance body established by Waikato-Tainui tribal group (“Tainui”) – Respondent held all Tainui’s tribal assets – Newspaper published article reporting directors (“H”) and (“M”) of private company received funds from Tainui to operate Maori King’s office – Not disputed by parties that statements in article caused Tainui embarrassment – Chairman (“T”) of respondent’s executive board authorised to investigate allegations reported by M’s son (“N”) – Authority noted investigation attracted considerable public interest, however, emphasised personal grievance only issue to be determined – T argued provided R with statement of allegations and asked if applicant asked R to pass on information to Pakeha reporter so could not be sourced – R answered in affirmative – Subsequently R declared in letter for applicant’s lawyers that applicant did not leak story – Applicant denied being source of leak – T rejected applicant’s denial was source of leak and that correspondence with reporter merely confirmatory of information already in public domain – Authority found R never going to participate for respondent’s purposes to reveal source – Found journalists protected their sources and law recognised and protected such relationships in public interest – Found in circumstances quality of evidence to be gathered unlikely to be direct and explicit – Found respondent entitled to regard R’s statements neutrally – Authority found N’s initial allegations corroborated by further evidence – Authority considered N’s evidence of discussions with R critical – Authority found applicant not honest with T when said had not spoken to R – Found applicant’s misrepresentation of situation would not have instilled confidence in T – Found applicant did not provide respondent specific explanation to allegation that suggested R refer story to Pakeha reporter – Found applicant did not provide, at any stage, full detailed account of correspondence with R – Found applicant obliged to do so given seriousness of allegations – Found applicant obliged to act in good faith, and be active and responsive with respondent – Found respondent entitled to reject applicant’s denials and accept evidence from T and N of serious misconduct – Dismissal justified – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Application dismissed - Chief Executive Officer |
| Result | Applications dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;Evidence Act 2006 s68 |
| Cases Cited | Rau v Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc, unreported, L Robinson, 9 Feb 2010 (AA 57/10);Wanganui College Board of Trustees v Lewis [2000] 1 ERNZ 397 |
| Number of Pages | 24 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 57a_10.pdf [pdf 80 KB] |