ERA upholds employer's refusal to reinstate a trainee dismissed for intoxicated behaviour on a company trip
A trainee who twice attempted to urinate from a moving company vehicle while heavily intoxicated during a work training trip has been denied interim reinstatement by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), which found his former employer's safety concerns remained unresolved.
The decision concerned an application by the trainee, who is identified as MHT under an interim non-publication order, against his former employer, a limited liability company operating in a safety-critical industry.
ERA Member Jeremy Lynch declined the trainee's application, finding that the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured the employer.
From self-disclosure to dismissal
MHT commenced employment as a paid trainee in the Waikato region in May 2025, aged 18.
He later acknowledged to his employer that his relationship with alcohol had become increasingly problematic since turning 18, in part because he had more disposable income.
After losing his driver's licence due to excess breath alcohol, MHT sought rehabilitation support from his employer, which he said offered such assistance as part of its drug and alcohol policy.
In September 2025, MHT travelled with colleagues in a sign-written company vehicle to attend a week-long training course in Hawke's Bay.
The employer alleged that during the journey, MHT consumed alcohol to the point of significant intoxication and engaged in disorderly conduct.
The employer alleged he twice attempted to urinate from the moving vehicle without wearing a seatbelt, once on the way to Hawke's Bay and again on the return journey, requiring the driver to intervene on both occasions.
The employer said the vehicle subsequently required professional cleaning.
MHT broadly accepted the allegations but contended the conduct occurred outside working hours and during unpaid travel time.
He was suspended on September 30, 2025, and summarily dismissed for serious misconduct on October 21, 2025. A personal grievance was filed on his behalf in December 2025, which his former employer declined to remedy.
ERA's findings
MHT lodged his interim reinstatement application in March 2026, five months after his dismissal, a delay the Authority identified as a significant factor weighing against him.
The ERA accepted MHT had met the low threshold for an arguable case on both unjustified dismissal and permanent reinstatement, noting unresolved disputes over the disciplinary process. However, Lynch found the balance of convenience favoured the employer.
MHT had argued that the employer was his only viable training provider and that losing his position would derail his career.
"However, the Authority observes that although this may be the cause of inconvenience to MHT, it is not unusual for an employee to regularly travel the equivalent (or greater) distance to attend their place of work on a daily basis," the ruling read. "In addition, there is no evidence before the Authority of MHT making any attempt to obtain alternative on-the-job training elsewhere."
On the question of overall justice, the ERA emphasised that MHT's dismissal was not because he had a drinking problem.
"Rather, his dismissal followed a disciplinary investigation which found that his behaviour while intoxicated occurred while he was representing the company, using company property, and was sufficiently work-related (given that he was being transported to attend work training) that it represented a serious failure to act safely, respectfully and responsibly, and had the potential to bring the company into disrepute," the ruling stated.
The Authority found there was "no evidence" that the safety concerns leading to the employer's loss of trust and confidence in MHT are not likely to reoccur.
MHT's treatment provider had confirmed he was making progress but required ongoing support, and was silent on workplace safety.
"The information provided by the treatment provider appears to suggest that MHT's issues with alcohol are not historic issues that are fully resolved, but ones that MHT is still working through," the Authority said.
The application for interim reinstatement was declined. MHT's substantive personal grievance claims, including permanent reinstatement, will proceed to a full investigation. Costs were reserved.
