National women's refuge body dragged into the personal grievance case of one of its former member organisations
The National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges (NCIWR) has been cleared of legal responsibility for the dismissal of two employees at one of its member organisations.
The Employment Court, in a judgment this month, ruled that the NCIWR had no meaningful role in the decision of the now-liquidated Whare Manaaki Incorporated to let go of Jan Frances Love and Judith Crestani.
Love and Crestani were both key staff members at the Wellington-based facility who were terminated after being accused of misappropriating funds and operating a wellbeing fund without proper authorisation.
They have been holding the NCIWR as a "controlling third party" in their personal grievance proceedings under the Employment Relations Act 2000, which allows claims against third parties who effectively controlled employees' work environments.
Their accusations come after the NCIWR placed Whare Manaaki on notice in April 2024 following concerns about financial management, a failure to meet contractual requirements, and complaints about staff behaviour.
The NCIWR appointed an independent investigator, whose final report substantiated some concerns and recommended a forensic audit of Whare Manaaki's financial records.
The report made no findings of workplace misconduct against Love or Crestani individually, and expressly excluded disciplinary recommendations from its scope.
However, Whare Manaaki's employment committee used the report as a trigger to launch its own internal investigation.
The internal probe led to the pair's suspension and dismissal in October 2024. Whare Manaaki was subsequently disaffiliated by NCIWR and placed into voluntary liquidation in March 2025.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) agreed there was an arguable case for Love and Crestani, but the NCIWR challenged the order at the Employment Court.
Is NCIWR a 'controlling third party'?
The Employment Court overturned the ERA's ruling, and found the NCIWR not liable for the dismissal of Love and Crestani.
The court acknowledged "by a very narrow margin" that it is arguable that NCIWR exercised, or was entitled to exercise, control or direction over Whare Manaaki's employees in a similar manner as their employer.
However, it drew the line at holding NCIWR being responsible for the dismissal of the employees in the case.
"NCIWR did not make any findings in its report about employment matters, and to the extent that the first defendants say this is because it colluded with Whare Manaaki, that submission is rejected," the court ruled.
It also underscored that Whare Manaaki undertook its own separate employment investigation, which included an external forensic investigation.
"That this was possibly brought on by NCIWR's investigation may form part of the factual background, but it is too remote to demonstrate that NCIWR caused or contributed to the personal grievance in the sense that it should be held liable," the court ruled.
As a result, the court said NCIWR's challenge was successful, setting aside the ERA's order for the organisation to join the proceedings as a controlling third party under the Employment Relations Act.
"I am satisfied that there is no serious question to be tried in relation to whether NCIWR's actions caused or contributed to the personal grievances."
