Alleged misconduct at police college leads to unjustified disadvantage grievance
A police constable has been awarded $6,000 in compensation after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found he was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the Police's handling of a misconduct allegation during his training.
The case stems from when the constable was a recruit at the Royal New Zealand Police College in October 2023, where a fellow recruit accused him of inappropriate conduct.
According to the allegations, the recruit allegedly used his body weight to pin his fellow recruit against a wall and, in another incident, was said to have touched her buttocks as they ascended a stairwell.
He was called into a meeting in October 2023, handed a letter outlining the allegations, and immediately stood down from duty for a period of 30 days.
He was escorted from the college and barred from graduating with his cohort, which was due to happen in approximately three days' time. The Police launched both a criminal and an employment investigation, but criminal charges were ultimately not pursued.
The employment investigation also concluded that both allegations against the recruit were not upheld. He was called back in March 2024 and was later attested as a Constable in April 2024.
The recruit lodged a personal grievance, arguing that the process was unfair and that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the suspension or to have a support person present.
Recruit unjustifiably disadvantaged
In its determination, the ERA sided with the constable, finding that the Police failed to meet their obligations under both the Policing Act 2008 and the Employment Relations Act 2000.
While the Police have statutory authority to suspend employees, the ERA ruled that this power must be exercised in accordance with good faith and natural justice.
"There was not an immediate need for suspension such as would justify the absence of [the recruit] first being put on a proposal to do so and being given at least a preliminary opportunity to raise any issues in response," wrote ERA member Rowan Anderson.
"The actions of Police were not those of a fair and reasonable employer and that [the recruit] was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Police's failure to provide him with an opportunity to respond to a proposal he be suspended from his employment."
The ERA also criticised the Police for failing to communicate clearly about the investigation process.
Although the recruit was told that a "dual process" of criminal and employment investigations would run concurrently, the employment investigation was delayed until after the criminal matter concluded. This left the recruit in a state of uncertainty.
"It is understandable that [the recruit] was confused as to the process being followed and that he understood the employment investigation would commence in October 2023," Anderson noted.
The ERA noted that while there was nothing inherently wrong with the general approach taken by Police, the communication issues were significant.
"The communication was also such that it created an impression that the criminal and employment processes, absent any agreed abeyance of the employment investigation, would be undertaken in parallel."
The ERA awarded the constable $6,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings, citing the stress and uncertainty he experienced as a parent and income provider.
However, the Authority declined to award lost wages, finding that he was paid according to his contract and would not have graduated earlier even if the process had been handled differently.
