Worker claimed suicide risk, racism and whistleblower protection but council's documentation won
A New Zealand council fired a project manager for damaging client relationships despite mental health struggles and whistleblower claims, and the authority upheld the dismissal.
Michael Reddy seemed like a strong hire when Hamilton City Council brought him on as a project manager in August 2019. He had the credentials, the technical skills, and the project management expertise the facilities team needed. But within months, the complaints started rolling in.
Museum staff said he was rude. Library managers called him confrontational. Contractors described his communication style as aggressive and uncooperative. During a roof replacement project at Waikato Museum, things got so tense that work had to stop. The facilities manager later said Reddy's approach caused a significant breakdown in relationships with contractors.
The council didn't rush to discipline. Instead, management tried to help. They provided direct feedback, brought in an external professional coach, and gave ongoing guidance through supervisors.
By June 2020, the complaints were more specific. The manager of one contracting firm said Reddy had a bullying communication style and used abusive language. A client said he demanded an emergency plan in a confrontational tone and was bullying the contractors on site.
Then Reddy flipped the script. In July 2020, he met with HR to say he was the one being bullied. He claimed his manager had a racist attitude toward him, pointing to an instance where the manager laughed while he was eating sushi. When HR asked for more details, Reddy couldn't explain why he believed it was racially motivated. He asked to keep the conversation confidential and said he didn't want to file a formal complaint.
The council proceeded with an independent investigation focusing on the complaints against Reddy. An external investigator interviewed everyone involved, including Reddy and witnesses he requested. The report found seven incidents that together showed a clear pattern of code of conduct violations.
The investigator's assessment was blunt. Reddy "operated from a place of distrust for contractors," the report stated, and didn't seem to grasp how his communication style was wrecking working relationships. In September 2020, he received a written warning and a detailed support plan: weekly check-ins, supervision at contractor meetings, continued coaching, and careful project handovers.
It didn't work. New complaints came almost immediately. Reddy skipped scheduled meetings, disrupted handovers from a temporary project manager, cut his supervisor out of emails, and told an outside contractor that management was plotting to remove him.
As the disciplinary process moved forward, Reddy's lawyer claimed whistleblower protection under the Protected Disclosures Act. The council pushed back, pointing out that complaints against Reddy started before his confidential HR meeting and that his concerns didn't meet the legal bar for protected disclosures.
Medical certificates complicated things. Reddy submitted notes citing mental distress and suicide ideation. The council took it seriously enough to contact the district health board's mental health crisis team. Reddy declined their help. When the council noticed he was still emailing contractors and consulting with his lawyer about filing an employment claim, they decided to move forward with dismissal.
In January 2021, Hamilton City Council terminated Reddy's employment. The dismissal letter was direct: "we have lost trust and confidence in your ability to perform your role."
Reddy challenged the firing, arguing it was unjustified and that the council never properly investigated his bullying complaints. On December 22, 2025, the Employment Relations Authority disagreed on both counts. Member Eleanor Robinson found that HR handled Reddy's confidential complaints appropriately by respecting his wishes, explaining his options, and providing the harassment policy. On the dismissal itself, Robinson concluded the council acted in a way that was both substantively and procedurally fair.
For HR leaders, the case offers a road map. Mental health struggles don't create immunity from accountability, especially when someone can still function in other areas. Whistleblower protections have limits and can't be claimed retroactively as a shield. And when technical skills come at the cost of burned relationships, employers can act if they document everything and follow proper process.
