He approved the steak order. He just skipped the paperwork
A prison worker dismissed after a staff barbecue stocked with premium steaks from the kitchen lost his bid to get his job back.
The worker had been with the New Zealand Department of Corrections since January 2005, spending his last 15 years as principal instructor for catering and laundry at the Northland Regional Corrections Facility.
$25 per head and a very expensive steak order
In October 2024, the worker and colleagues discussed holding a barbecue at his home for their team. Under the Department’s Sensitive Expenditure Policy, it could contribute up to $25 per person for food at one annual celebration - but only with prior approval from a deputy commissioner. Anything over $200 needed sign-off well above facility level. Nobody on-site could approve it.
A team member invited 24 colleagues and placed the food order online. The worker approved the purchase. It included a significant quantity of high-quality and expensive steak - pushing past the $25-per-head limit.
CCTV footage captured the worker carrying items from the prison kitchen, helping transfer them to a vehicle and driving a goods trolley back inside. The barbecue went ahead the next day at his home.
Three allegations, one dismissal
The Department investigated three allegations: that the worker arranged for food to be taken for a private event, authorised the removal without approval, and gave misleading information about whether approval existed. All three were substantiated. The team member received a final written warning. The worker was dismissed on February 3, 2026.
He challenged the dismissal and asked the Employment Court to reinstate him while his case played out.
His defence was that the team member had taken responsibility for getting approval, telling him the manager of industries gave “the go ahead.” That manager told a different story - it was only about holding an event, not the Department paying for food.
The court found the case “weakly arguable.” The worker knew the policy, had previously applied for similar approval and been declined, and accepted he held authority to approve the food order.
A new label at the last minute
One argument carried more weight. The worker said “misuse of departmental property” - a new ground for dismissal - may only have become clear to him in the termination letter, without a chance to respond. The court accepted that was arguable. A finding that serious should not become clear only at termination.
Not enough to come back. The worker was already receiving 80 percent of his income through accident compensation for an unrelated injury. The conduct alleged - in a prison where policy compliance is a safety issue - weighed against reinstatement. His lawyer’s failure to comply with mediation directed by the Authority, calling it of “no utility,” counted against him too.
For HR teams running disciplinary processes, the lesson is pointed: introducing a new misconduct label at termination can hand a dismissed worker a credible challenge.
The worker’s claim for unjustified dismissal has not been finally determined and remains before the Employment Relations Authority.
