He'd guarded the border since 1977 - then one return-to-work plan changed everything
After 45 years guarding New Zealand's borders, a senior quarantine officer lost his job - and most of his case.
The Employment Relations Authority ruled on October 6 that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) was justified in terminating the long-serving officer on medical grounds after a prolonged absence spanning multiple health conditions. But the outcome was not a clean sweep for the ministry. The Authority found MPI had unjustifiably disadvantaged the worker - meaning it treated him unfairly without good reason - during a specific window in late 2023 when he was medically cleared to work but left off the roster without explanation.
The worker had been with border biosecurity services since 1977, starting as a port agricultural officer with the Ministry of Fisheries and eventually becoming a senior quarantine officer with MPI. The role was physically demanding - frontline work across passenger, cargo and mail border locations, rotational shifts including nights, and 11.5-hour days.
Twelve months off the roster
Trouble started in late 2022 when the worker went on sick leave. He did not return when his medical certificate expired in January 2023 and did not communicate with his employer about the absence. Over the next 12 months, MPI described his attendance as "patchy" and his communication as "inconsistent."
By September 2023, MPI had moved to a formal process. The worker's GP was contacted and - in a detail that did not help his case - indicated there were no barriers to a full-time return and was surprised at the length of the absence. The GP had only provided three medical certificates totalling 29 days over a nine-month period.
MPI then arranged an independent medical assessment. The worker was cleared to return from late November 2023, with a graduated return-to-work plan recommended.
Then came a curveball. In December 2023, the worker was diagnosed with a different condition requiring specialist critical surgery in January 2024. Any return-to-work discussion was shelved.
The return that never happened
After surgery and recovery, the worker was cleared by his GP to return in April 2024. MPI appeared to be moving in the same direction - emails showed the ministry rostering him to start back on July 1, 2024.
But MPI also arranged an updated medical assessment and, on that practitioner's suggestion, engaged an occupational therapist to draft a detailed graduated return-to-work plan. The OT report estimated 11 to 16 weeks for a full return. It included requirements for daily symptom updates to MPI and rest breaks during shifts.
That was where MPI drew the line. The ministry decided it was "unwilling and unable" to reasonably support the additional requirements. The plan also only covered one of two work "pathways" the role required - meaning a second graduated return, a further workplace assessment, and further cost would likely follow.
On August 15, 2024, MPI wrote to the worker proposing termination on medical grounds. The worker sought a second independent OT assessment. MPI declined to consider it, but the worker provided it anyway. On October 8, 2024, his employment was terminated as a medical retirement.
Where MPI got it right
The Authority applied established case law on when an employer can fairly "cry halt" on a long-term medical absence - that is, when it can reasonably say enough is enough and end the employment. On the central question of whether the dismissal was justified, MPI met the standard.
The Authority found MPI had given the worker a reasonable opportunity to recover, noting the cautious approach of engaging an independent medical practitioner and allowing further recovery time. It accepted that MPI had undertaken a genuine balancing exercise, weighing the worker's interests against the operational realities of a physically demanding, shift-based frontline role. The long-term feasibility of managerial resources, health and safety risks, the workload impact on colleagues who had covered overtime for 18 months, and the financial cost all factored in.
The Authority also found that MPI's process was fair. The worker had been notified of the possibility of termination as early as August 2023. He was formally advised of the proposal in January 2024 and given opportunities to provide feedback throughout.
On MPI's decision to prefer the original OT assessment over the worker's independently obtained second report, the Authority accepted that the original OT had better insight into the worker's health needs and workplace demands.
One point the Authority specifically examined was whether MPI's decision was driven by frustration with the worker's earlier absences and poor communication. It found no evidence of that. The termination proposal focused on the graduated return-to-work requirements, not the earlier attendance record.
Where MPI stumbled
The one area where the ministry fell short was a 17-day window in September and October 2023. The worker had been cleared by his GP to return on September 25 but was not placed on the roster. It took MPI a month to tell him it was seeking a second medical opinion.
During that gap, the worker was cleared, available and willing to work - but was effectively placed on involuntary unpaid leave without being told why his doctor's clearance was not accepted, or that MPI had raised a new concern about his physical presentation with his GP.
The Authority found this created an unjustified disadvantage. It ordered MPI to pay the worker 17 days of wages at his ordinary hourly rate. No additional compensation was awarded - the worker had not demonstrated sufficient impact from the period to justify it.
A separate claim that MPI breached its good faith duty was unsuccessful. The Authority found insufficient information to support it.
The worker also argued the final termination decision should have been communicated in person rather than by email. The Authority acknowledged this but classified it as a minor procedural shortcoming that did not amount to unfair treatment.
What it means for HR teams
For HR professionals managing long-term medical absence, the case maps out what a defensible process looks like - independent medical assessments, genuine consideration of return-to-work plans, documented operational constraints, and meaningful consultation. But it also shows that a gap of just 17 working days, where a cleared employee is left in limbo without explanation, can be enough to create liability. The process matters even in the quiet stretches between the big decisions.
This matter has been heard and determined by the Employment Relations Authority. Costs have been reserved.
