ERA finds the ministry had lapses in its investigation
A senior quarantine officer who was fired after taking a colleague to a friend's house for lunch has been reinstated to his role after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found his dismissal unjustified.
The senior officer, with 18 years of service at MPI, was summarily dismissed in October 2025 following two workplace complaints.
But the ERA found that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had failed to properly investigate the primary complaint against him, and that dismissal was a disproportionate response to the second.
As a result, it ordered MPI to pay the worker more than $77,000 in compensation and lost wages.
Complaints that ended an 18-year career
The first of the two workplace complaints faced by the senior officer was brought by a colleague, identified only as AB, who alleged that she was pressured to visit his friend's home for lunch while the pair were conducting inspections at transitional facilities in West Auckland.
AB, who was on her second day on the job, alleged she felt "highly uncomfortable," "uneasy," "gross," and "nervous" and said she had felt unable to decline.
She also alleged the officer made inappropriate and borderline homophobic comments and pressured her not to report his conduct.
The second complaint, from a colleague identified as UX, alleged the officer raised his voice aggressively at him in June 2025 after UX asked him to continue working on the office inbox.
MPI investigated both complaints over several months. In October 2025, it dismissed the officer for serious misconduct arising from the first complaint, and misconduct for the second.
The officer raised a personal grievance nine days later, and in March 2026 applied to the ERA for interim reinstatement, which was granted in May 2026.
MPI's investigation lapses
ERA member Simon Greening found MPI's handling of the primary complaint fell well short of what a fair and reasonable employer was required to do.
A central concern was MPI's failure to account for the fact that AB had been told things about the officer by colleagues, such as being allegedly inappropriate.
"It was clear from AB's written complaint, that comments made by colleagues to her about [the senior officer], had, at a minimum, unconsciously influenced her view of [the officer]," Greening said in the decision.
"I am not satisfied that MPI sufficiently weighed this important consideration as part of its investigation."
Greening also found MPI had misread the nature of the lunchtime exchange. MPI characterised it as the officer asking AB "multiple times" for her consent, a framing Greening said was "taken out of context."
The complaint itself described a back-and-forth in which the officer progressively shortened the proposed visit from 20 minutes, to 10, then to five, a distinction the ERA found material.
MPI also failed to consider how other employees used fleet vehicles during breaks, and raised a "dysfunctional and broken working relationship" as a factor in the dismissal without ever putting that concern to the officer during the disciplinary process.
Permanent reinstatement ordered
Despite MPI's objections, including claims of broken trust and the distress reinstatement might cause complainants, Greening ordered the officer returned to his former position permanently.
The ERA member noted the officer's role was mobile and rotational, reducing the likelihood of daily contact with the complainants, and that he had already been working under the interim reinstatement order without incident since June 2026.
MPI was ordered to pay the officer $22,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation, and $55,080 in lost wages.
