Employment Court cites flawed process and employee violence
The Employment Court has found that a Salvation Army employee was unjustifiably dismissed because of a flawed disciplinary investigation, but declined to award any remedies because of his own conduct. In Hannah v The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust [2026] NZEmpC 228, Judge Helen Doyle held the employer should have made further inquiries before dismissing him. She also found he had pushed a team leader with force and directed abusive language at her, and that this was one of the very rare cases where no remedy was warranted.
Background
The employee was summarily dismissed in March 2024 after an incident at the Furniture Store on 7 February 2024. Two team leaders had approached him to discuss matters he was upset about. He did not want to meet, and the interaction escalated. The employer alleged he failed to follow a team leader's instruction, physically abused a co-worker, and used abusive and threatening language. Each was treated as serious misconduct under the "house rules" in his employment agreement. The Employment Relations Authority rejected his personal grievance, and he challenged that determination in the Court.
The Court also declined the Salvation Army's application for permanent non-publication orders, emphasising open justice and the media's right to report outcomes. It anonymised the two team leaders instead.
Why the dismissal was unjustified
Because Mr Hannah was dismissed before the 2026 amendments, the Court applied s 103A as it then stood: whether the employer's actions, and how it acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. It accepted that parts of the process were fair. Mr Hannah was told of the allegations, offered representation and given several meetings.
The problem was the investigation. The team leaders' written accounts conflicted with Mr Hannah's explanations on the extent of the abusive language, whether threats were made and the nature of the physical contact. The allegations put to him also included matters absent from one team leader's written statement, including a rowing machine falling on her foot and "very derogatory" threatening language. The Court said this cast real doubt on the completeness of the written accounts and on whether the employer could simply rely on them.
The Court also found further inquiries were needed on whether the instruction allegation amounted to serious misconduct, since the video had no sound and Mr Hannah said he had not realised he was refusing an instruction. There was no apparent difficulty in making these inquiries, and the decision-maker was still weighing dismissal against a final written warning. The Court held the defects were major, not minor.
Why no remedies were awarded
On contribution, the Court preferred the team leaders' evidence. It found Mr Hannah pushed one of them with force and used more than one derogatory slur about her gender and sexual orientation, though it did not find a clear threat. It acknowledged context, including his stress about possible store closures and that it might have been sensible to let him cool down, but found his unhappiness did not justify his actions. It also found a fair process would likely have led to dismissal.
Takeaways for employers
- Where witness accounts conflict, go back to those involved again before deciding.
- Keep allegations tied to what the evidence supports.
- Check whether each issue could amount to serious misconduct.
- Procedural errors can be costly even where conduct is serious.
- Note that this case pre-dates the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 which introduces s123B barring all remedies such as reinstatement, wage reimbursement, or compensation.