Council upholds complaint over articles on migrant worker

Photo / Herald on Sunday

A complaint by Pierre Le Noel and Executive Recruiters International Limited (ERI) against four articles appearing in the New Zealand Herald has been upheld on the grounds of lack of balance and fairness.

THE ARTICLES

The first article appeared on May 17, 2010 under the heading: "Migrant felt her boss was blackmailing her."

The first article referred to an allegation made by an immigrant to the Employment Relations Authority that she had been asked to pay her own taxes and wages in order to stay legally in New Zealand.

She said she was asked to do this "in order to deceive Immigration officials into thinking she was being employed at $55,000 ... for her to meet skilled migration requirements".

The article noted that the employer denied the allegations "and Mr Le Noel claimed she had full knowledge and was in agreement of the arrangement between them".

The immigrant's evidence was that she felt that she was being blackmailed by Mr Le Noel. Coincidentally, the decision of the Employment Relations Authority was issued on the day that the article appeared.

As a result of a phone call from Jenny Le Noel, the Herald, on May 18, published the second article headed: "Migrant loses grievance case against employer."

The first paragraph stated: "A woman has lost a case in which she claimed her employer asked her to pay her own taxes and wages to support her residency application."

The article then summarised the decision which included a finding that ERI had unilaterally varied the original terms and conditions, which was a serious breach of the employment agreement. However, the immigrant had acquiesced in the variation and had not been constructively dismissed. The claim, therefore, failed.

The third article on May 22 stated: "Migrants gaining residency via scam."

The lengthy article dealt with the practice of immigrants being asked to pay their own wages and taxes to obtain permanent New Zealand residency.

The article included: "This week, South African migrant worker, Jacqueline Sydow, lost her personal grievance case in the Employment Relations Authority after alleging that her employer, Executive Recruiters International, had asked her to pay her own taxes and wages to support her residency application."

The final article published on May 25 was headed: "Employment-case loser told to leave NZ."

The article referred to Ms Sydow's work permit being revoked.

It stated she had lost the employment case against her employer but also included: "Miss Sydow claimed Executive Recruiters International asked her to pay her own taxes and wages to support her residency application."

THE COMPLAINT

The complainants complained that in these articles the newspaper repeated the unsubstantiated and previously unpresented claims by Ms Sydow of blackmail and fraud. The articles were slanted to indicate that these claims were the basis of the case.

Although the complainants won the court case, their complaint is that the articles damaged the reputation of Mr Le Noel and ERI and that the Herald continued in the series of articles to make allegations which they knew to be incorrect.

In response to the Herald's allegation that Mrs Le Noel, in her telephone conversation with the deputy editor, said that if they had been asked they would not have commented anyway, Mrs Le Noel's position is that it was the deputy editor who stated "You would not have commented anyway."

The complainant's position is that at no time did the Herald seek comment from them and therefore was unfair and unbalanced.

THE HERALD'S POSITION

The Herald denies that its coverage was misleading, inaccurate and lacked balance. Its position is that it conformed to normal reporting standards of tribunals and rightly included follow-up stories on issues arising from the case.

The first article was based on the briefs of evidence provided for the case by Ms Sydow and Mr Le Noel. The Herald specifically rejected the suggestion that the allegations of blackmail and fraud were new and previously unpresented because they appeared in the briefs of evidence.

The newspaper also makes the point that its story reported something which the complainants prefer to ignore, namely that the authority found there had been a serious breach of the employment agreement.

DISCUSSION

The Herald was entitled to report the facts included in the first article.

Allegations that a person has asked an employee to pay her own taxes and wages in order to obtain permanent residency and the blackmailing allegations are serious allegations.

While the Herald made it clear that they were allegations, it repeated them in four articles and in the last three of those articles would have known that although the ERA knew of the allegations, it did not refer to them in its decision. This may have been because the ERA determined that the allegations were not relevant to the issue in the case but the failure to comment on them could not advance the allegations.

Although an inference can perhaps be drawn from the fact that Mr Le Noel did not specifically deny the allegations in his brief of evidence, the continued publication of this allegation is likely to reflect on the integrity of Mr Le Noel and the ERI.

In the circumstances, the Press Council is of the view that the Herald should have, before repeating the allegations in the third and fourth articles, specifically sought from Mr Le Noel his response to the allegations.

In not doing so, it put out an unbalanced story which may have been unfair to the complainants. For this reason, the complaint is upheld on the grounds of lack of fairness and balance.