Ōtūmoetai College beats facilities manager's $171k vaccine mandate contract bid
Employment Relations Authority member Geoff O'Sullivan, on 7 September 2026, dismissed a facilities manager's contract and redundancy claims over his 2021 vaccine mandate dismissal.
The facilities manager had worked at Ōtūmoetai College since January 2018, managing a team of four caretakers and a cleaner at the school, which had more than 2,000 students and 260 staff. He was dismissed on 30 November 2021 after declining to be vaccinated against Covid-19, following changes to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 requiring on-site education staff to be vaccinated. A Board subcommittee had assessed that the order covered any staff working on site while students were present, and he was told that from 16 November 2021 he could not attend work until he had received his first dose.
He initially raised a personal grievance alleging unjustified dismissal and disadvantage, then amended his claim to drop those grounds altogether. In their place, he pursued breach of contract, unfair bargaining, unilateral variation of his employment agreement, health and safety, good faith and redundancy claims against the Ōtūmoetai College Board. Combined, the claims sought more than $171,000, alongside a written reference and an independent investigation into the school's health and safety processes.
The Board argued the vaccination requirement stemmed from the Government's order rather than any decision of its own, and that the claims effectively challenged the dismissal itself, an avenue only open through the personal grievance process under section 113 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The determination was issued outside the usual three-month timeframe, which the Chief of the Authority allowed due to exceptional circumstances.
O'Sullivan found his employment “ended because of his decision not to be vaccinated”, rather than because of any process failure by the Board.
His duties met the threshold for certain work under the order, O'Sullivan found, given his on-site role maintaining school facilities and unavoidable contact with students. The Board had considered alternatives including offsite work, reduced hours and a 12-month leave period, but ruled them out because someone was needed on site in emergencies.
Nor had the Board varied the employment agreement, engaged in unfair bargaining, or breached its health and safety obligations, O'Sullivan found, since complying with a legislative order could not itself amount to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act. No redundancy situation arose either, as the school's collective agreement redundancy clause applied only to reorganisation or surplus staffing, neither of which occurred.
Costs were reserved, with the Board able to file a memorandum within 28 days if the parties cannot agree on the amount. In dismissing the remaining claims, O'Sullivan concluded, “It follows, that [the facilities manager's] claims are dismissed”.
