Parking officer denied return to work pending harassment case

A former Auckland Transport parking officer dismissed over alleged stalking and harassment has been refused an interim return to work, despite the Employment Court finding he has an arguable case that his dismissal was unjustified.

Judge Kathryn Beck upheld an earlier Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision declining interim reinstatement for the worker, known only as FHE because of strict non‑publication orders.

The judge accepted that FHE has "an arguable case for unjustified dismissal with some serious or arguable, albeit not certain, prospects of success" and that he also has a case, though "not a particularly strong one," for permanent reinstatement if he ultimately succeeds.

However, she ruled that the seriousness of the allegations, and the potential safety and reputational consequences if they are later proven, outweigh the financial and personal hardship the former officer is currently suffering.

Harassment allegations

FHE began working for Auckland Transport (AT) in 2018 and, after training, was issued a warrant as a parking officer, authorising him to enforce parking rules and require information from members of the public.

In May 2025, AT summarily dismissed him for alleged serious misconduct. The employer alleged he had:

• used an AT email account to send emails to harass a former AT employee (the complainant) between June and November 2024
• waited outside the complainant's workplace in uniform "to harass and/or intimidate" her between September 2024 and January 2025
• misrepresented himself as other AT staff via messages
• sent infringement notice templates to his home, including one containing a member of the public’s personal information.

AT said the conduct undermined the public's confidence in the agency and breached its values.

"In AT's view, such breaches caused a complete destruction of trust and confidence required for the employment relationship to be able to continue," the court document read.

FHE denied harassing the complainant, saying his work and personal email accounts were compromised and that he was simply doing his job on the street. 

He also complained about his suspension, delays in the investigation and what he described as selective or withheld evidence. 

He filed his unjustified dismissal claim with the ERA in May 2025 and sought interim reinstatement, which the ERA declined. That refusal became the subject of his challenge in the Employment Court.

Arguable case over process, but no interim job

Judge Beck found it arguable that AT did not meet its obligations under ss 4(1A)(b) and 103A of the Act.

The court noted that information that should have been provided to FHE in the course of the investigation and disciplinary process was not provided, including parts of the complainant's case file and a cybersecurity report that FHE says supports his hacking explanation.

His challenges to AT's narrow use of GPS data and alleged failure to look for exculpatory material were also found to reach the "arguable case" threshold, rather than being "vexatious or frivolous."

But the court stressed that the interim application turns not just on arguable rights, but also on the balance of convenience and the overall interests of justice.

Safety, trust and public confidence decisive

While accepting that FHE faces mortgage pressure and significant stress, the court held that any unjustified loss of income could later be addressed by damages. By contrast, if he were reinstated and his explanations were later rejected, the harms to AT and the complainant might be irreversible.

"As a public entity, AT has obligations to ensure that its employees uphold standards of integrity, trust and confidence," Judge Beck said. 

"If FHE were reinstated but his explanations – that he was hacked or compromised or simply doing his job – were subsequently found to be unsubstantiated, the reputational and safety costs to both AT and the complainant would outweigh FHE's temporary loss of income."

Judge Beck concluded that an order for interim reinstatement "is not in the interests of justice." 

The challenge to the ERA's decision was dismissed and interim non‑publication orders over the identities of the plaintiff, the complainant, her mother and certain AT staff remain in force.

The ERA is scheduled to hear FHE's substantive unjustified dismissal case in May 2026. Costs in the Employment Court proceeding have been reserved.