Allan Halse's company CultureSafe NZ was put in liquidation and bankruptcy proceedings were brought against him. Photo / NZME
Allan Halse's company CultureSafe NZ was put in liquidation and bankruptcy proceedings were brought against him. Photo / NZME
There’s no denying Allan Halse is a staunch defender of bullied workers.
In his crusade against workplace bullying, the controversial employment advocate has taken on a city council, won almost $100,000 for a kindy teacher and $60,000 for a relief ambulance driver, and gone all the way to Parliament to raise concerns about New Zealand’s employment relations laws.
He’s not a trained lawyer, but a union delegate turned advocate who saw a chance to help the underdog, workers fighting back against companies they claim have bullied them.
He uses Facebook as a platform to regularly update his 25,000 followers on cases of workplace bullying and employment law, and his work has led to him being nominated for New Zealander of the Year five times.
But at some point in a lengthy battle with one employer over alleged bullying between staff in a rest home, anarchy has reigned.
At least, that’s one description used by the Employment Court in the long-running case of RPW versus C and H, or as they can now be identified, the Rangiura Trust Board versus CultureSafe NZ and its director Halse.
The case boils down to a protracted legal argument over whether Halse breached a settlement when he made disparaging remarks about an employer after signing an agreement not to.
The five-year back and forth battle has resulted in seven Employment Relations Authority determinations, seven Employment Court decisions, and attempts to appeal at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
And despite the case leading to the liquidation of Halse’s company CultureSafe NZ in August last year and efforts to bankrupt him, it continues.
Halse claims the case against him is a strategic legal action against public participation, known as a Slapp, to prevent him from speaking out against workplace bullying.
The case began in 2018 when Halse, now 71, and CultureSafe NZ advocated for a Rangiura rest home worker who claimed she had been bullied.
It was settled at mediation and the worker resigned with Rangiura agreeing to pay a financial settlement.
The agreement included a clause that neither Rangiura nor Halse could make disparaging or negative remarks about the other.
Shortly after signing the March 2018 settlement, Halse posted comments about Rangiura on his CultureSafe NZ Facebook page that the charity said were disparaging.
The extensive litigation begins
Rangiura lodged a claim with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to compel Halse to comply with the settlement agreement.
Halse denied breaching the agreement and said the ERA did not have jurisdiction to prevent him from commenting publicly about the trust.
He claimed Rangiura’s attempts to enforce his obligations under the settlement were “frivolous, vexatious, malicious, illegal and unlawful”.
But authority member Rachel Larmer said those claims were “entirely devoid of merit”.
She said there was a risk justice could be undermined if the authority failed to order Halse to comply because it created the perception that settlement obligations could be breached without redress.
Larmer ordered Halse to remove the offending posts and not make any more disparaging or negative remarks, putting him on notice that if he or CultureSafe NZ breached the orders there would be serious legal consequences.
The Rangiura Trust Board rest home in Putāruru. Photo / Google Maps
Rangiura was a charitable trust employing 110 people in 2018, funded by the then Waikato District Health Board and community donations, and governed by a voluntary board.
Halse argued Rangiura had not responded to the workplace bullying complaints and had used taxpayer money meant for health services, to “bully and blackmail” him into remaining quiet about serious harm.
He was critical of the time it had taken to address the issues raised and repeatedly publicly claimed Rangiura was “enabling” and “condoning bullying” in its workplace.
But Larmer said Halse had presented the claims as if they were established fact when they were not supported by the evidence.
Rangiura hired an independent expert investigator to examine the complaints of 14 employees represented by CultureSafe NZ.
Halse claimed the investigator was biased, the investigation would be a “predetermined sham”, and there could be no independence if an employer engaged and paid an investigator and had set the parameters of an investigation.
The investigation concluded that:
CultureSafe NZ’s bullying allegations did not meet WorkSafe’s definition of bullying;
There was credible evidence to support complaints other staff had made about inappropriate behaviour by some of CultureSafe’s clients;
There had been resentment among some staff since roster changes the year before;
When managers tried to address that negativity they were accused of bullying and harassment.
Larmer said Halse obstructed the investigation, disparaged the trust and investigator on Facebook, claimed the other staff complaints were retaliation, and strongly objected to Rangiura investigating them.
One CultureSafe NZ client known as M, lodged a claim with the authority in August 2018.
But M and Halse boycotted mediation with Halse claiming it was “unsafe” because Rangiura was a “hostile employer” with “hostile lawyers”.
“The authority discerned no evidence of hostility from [Rangiura] or its lawyers in any of the more than 700 pages of evidence it reviewed in this matter or the voluminous communications that were exchanged in the course of this proceedings,” Larmer wrote.
However, she said there was “significant hostility” from Halse toward Rangiura and its lawyers.
Halse made repeated threats to involve WorkSafe, the body responsible for investigating serious harm in the workplace, but never did.
Perverting the course of justice
Larmer described Halse’s communication style with the authority as “bellicose” and “bombastic”, disparaging everyone associated with the proceedings.
She instructed authority officers to withhold all irrelevant and potentially prejudicial communication sent from Halse, to preserve the integrity of the investigation.
On the day Larmer released her August 16, 2018, determination ordering compliance, Halse claimed on Facebook she was “biased” against him, “heavily conflicted” and improperly motivated.
Larmer considered whether she should recuse herself but said attempts by a party to undermine an investigation by publicly attacking the presiding member should not be encouraged by acceding to such tactics.
“Public interest requires that parties cannot be allowed to ‘member shop’ or derail an investigation by attacking the presiding member.”
Allan Halse took his concerns about workplace bullying to Parliament. Photo / NZME
Larmer said Halse’s claims about Rangiura were “distorted and disconnected from reality”.
She said he had twisted reasonable efforts by Rangiura to address the situation and enforce the settlement agreement into claims he was being “bullied, blackmailed, mobbed, harassed, attacked, abused and intimidated” by Rangiura.
“Those claims are unfounded,” she wrote.
Larmer said it was likely Halse made the claims to draw attention to a public social media crusade he was running against Rangiura, rather than to appropriately address genuine workplace issues.
She would eventually note 22 breaches of the settlement agreement on Facebook, another three breaches when Halse wrote to the DHB, and one breach in a letter to the Prime Minister’s office.
Eighteen occurred after he was ordered not to.
Larmer said Halse and CultureSafe NZ’s obstruction of the authority’s investigation resulted in it being far more difficult, complex, costly and drawn out and that they deliberately impeded Rangiura’s ability to enforce its legal rights, undermining public confidence in the authority and the investigation.
Halse obstructed the case by perverting the administration of justice, Larmer said.
This included writing to then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office and asking her to intervene, threatening negative publicity to the Labour Party if she didn’t.
He also wrote to Waikato DHB wanting his clients’ concerns included in an audit of Rangiura and said CultureSafe NZ would be “drawing public attention to the [mis]use of taxpayer funds that is meant to be used for providing healthcare”.
In other emails to the DHB he threatened to go to the media if it did not stop Rangiura’s proceedings.
Halse told the authority he wanted Rangiura audited by the DHB and “shut down”.
Larmer said an implied threat of adverse publicity against the DHB if it didn’t withdraw funding from Rangiura was an improper attempt to interfere with the trust’s ability to continue paying its legal fees, in the hope it would be forced to abandon its claims against Halse.
She said Halse’s comments on social media about the cost and funding of the proceedings were “particularly egregious because it was his own actions” that had caused Rangiura to exercise its legal rights.
The Employment Court wades in
Rangiura took the case to the Employment Court and in November 2018 Judge Mark Perkins fined Halse $2000 and ordered costs of $3500.
In the decision, Judge Perkins said the blatant breaches by Halse and CultureSafe NZ on social media were tantamount to “contempt” of the ERA and the Court.
“At times, it has seemed that anarchy has reigned. The actions of the defendants have been an affront to the purposes of the mediation process under the Act to resolve employment relationship problems and promote good faith dealings.
“I have already mentioned that the actions of the defendants could also have had severe consequences for their client. The Court cannot stand powerless in the face of such actions.”
Halse went back to the Employment Court to challenge two of the ERA determinations and prevent lawyers from representing Rangiura.
In a September 2020 decision Judge Perkins said breaches by Halse and CultureSafe NZ included complete disregard for the non-publication orders, threatening comments to the trust board and its counsel, and revealing confidential information obtained from dealings with Rangiura during the disputes.
Judge Perkins said Halse seemed unconcerned at the consequences of his request to have funding withdrawn from Ranigura and the potential impact on the continued employment of staff there.
Halse’s actions undermined Rangiura’s relationship with its employees, residents, families, and members of the public in the small town, Judge Perkins said.
He said Halse did not dispute his actions and appeared to “wear criticism of his behaviour as a badge of honour”.
“His modus seems to be to malign anyone he perceives to be in disagreement with his actions and views.”
The judge reminded Halse that as an advocate he held a privileged position before the court.
“I suggested that he might do better to comply with the same requirements of behaviour as are imposed on legal counsel when conducting court proceedings.”
Judge Perkins took exception to Halse’s lawyer Caroline Sawyer when she asserted that Rangiura’s counsel received “kickbacks”, stating he regarded it as “insulting and unacceptable”.
Rangiura made an offer to Halse and CultureSafe NZ to settle the case to avoid ongoing litigation and cost, commonly referred to as a Calderbank offer.
Halse promptly put the offer on Facebook and claimed Rangiura’s lawyers were blackmailing and bullying him.
Larmer said a Calderbank offer was a standard and legitimate response in litigation but Halse complained to police alleging Rangiura’s lawyer Sam Hood was blackmailing him.
She said Halse “disgracefully portrayed” Hood’s actions in continuing to act for Rangiura as criminal.
Halse complained that Larmer was complicit in the blackmail for having his “prejudicial communications” withheld from the ERA investigation and escalated his complaints to the Law Society.
Larmer said Halse then “conditioned his followers” to not believe the inevitable dismissal of his blackmail claims by the Law Society, by telling them he had “zero faith in the Law Society acting impartially”.
Norris Ward McKinnon managing partner Sam Hood represented the Rangiura Trust Board in multiple employment cases involving advocate Allan Halse.
This inflamed his followers who weighed in on the CultureSafe NZ Facebook page with their own disparaging remarks.
After Halse’s description of Hood as “one of the bad guys”, his followers posted: “F*** the cowards”, “tell them to go f*** themselves”, and claimed Hood should be prosecuted and disbarred.
The comments turned to violence and vigilantism with one follower threatening Hood and another writing: “I’m surprised someone hasn’t taken matters into their own hands”.
Halse denied he had incited violence but acknowledged to Hood during an investigation meeting he’d received a phone call from one supporter offering to “take out” Hood if Halse wanted them to.
Larmer said the authority was concerned at Halse’s lack of concern about that threat.
“Inciting that sort of threat against counsel, who was simply doing his job, should have been a clear sign to [Halse] that his disparaging public rhetoric about the authority’s process, and [Halse’s] personalised attacks on named individuals involved in these proceedings, had extended far outside the bounds of appropriate, reasonable or professional representation of [CultureSafe NZ’s] clients,” Larmer wrote.
“[Halse], a self-proclaimed anti-bullying advocate, did not appear to have recognised that.”
Public attacks and penalties
Halse publicly criticised seven individuals and nine organisations on his Facebook page during the course of the case in 2018, including Larmer and the authority.
He claimed the authority was engaged in a “witch hunt”, an “illegal and unethical campaign” against him, its “entire process was corrupt” and “a farce”, his case was “particularly sinister” and that the authority was conducting a “Salem witch trial”.
But Larmer said the inflammatory and untrue information was an improper attempt to undermine the authority’s investigation and “amounted to obstruction of justice”.
She ordered penalties on the 26 breaches and 11 categories of obstructive conduct but gave Halse the opportunity to apologise, retract the remarks, take steps to reduce the harm the breaches had caused, and accept responsibility for the wrongdoing.
Halse said at the investigation meeting he would never pay a cent in penalties, even if he had the money.
He and CultureSafe NZ faced maximum penalties of $140,000 and $280,000 respectively.
In a sixth ERA determination of the case, dated March 5, 2019, Larmer noted Halse’s public disparagement of employers, their lawyers, and the authority was a pattern, with Halse working the same way in a case where he represented an employee of Turuki Healthcare Services.
Allan Halse says he will not apologise for speaking the truth and defending workers who claim they were bullied. Photo / NZME
Larmer said Halse was on notice after the Turuki case that deliberate breaches would attract penalties but despite knowing that, he and CultureSafe NZ engaged in widespread disparagement in the Rangiura case.
“That indicates a serious escalation in deliberate wrongdoing by [Halse] and [CultureSafe NZ].”
She said two of the people Halse made disparaging posts about were employees of Rangiura that he did not represent, one of whom had to take time off work to cope.
Larmer said this was likely to have a chilling effect on other employees speaking up because if they did they risked public vilification.
She said others such as the trust board’s chairman, a farmer who volunteered at Rangiura, had been unfairly subjected to “so-called public naming and shaming”.
However, the chairman could not publicly correct what was described as “deceptive material” because of a non-publication order at the time, though Halse himself never wanted the order.
Larmer said Halse and CultureSafe NZ’s breaches were similar to witness intimidation.
She said Halse and CultureSafe NZ lacked remorse, failed to acknowledge wrongdoing or accept responsibility for their actions, and demonstrated a “defiant and irresponsible attitude”.
She ordered Halse and CultureSafe NZ to pay a total of $52,800 in penalties, including $30,000 to Rangiura, $16,800 to the Crown, and $6000 to Hood.
In the seventh ERA determination in June 2019 Larmer ordered Halse and CultureSafe NZ to pay a total of $30,000 in legal costs to Rangiura.
Halse sought to judicially review 16 directions and orders of the authority and seven decisions of the Employment Court at the Court of Appeal, relating to three cases where he was similarly found to be in breach of a settlement including Rangiura, Turuki, and Bay of Plenty District Health Board.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application as out of its jurisdiction or better dealt with in the Employment Court and Halse later sought leave to appeal at the Supreme Court.
In a judgment published in December 2021, Supreme Court Justices Ellen France and Mark O’Regan dismissed the application saying there was no miscarriage of justice.
A union delegate at the council, Halse blew the whistle on allegations of widespread bullying.
He was suspended on full pay and investigated for allegedly publishing derogatory statements about the council online, providing information to the media when he was not authorised to, and breaching council protocols for protected disclosures.
In January 2014 Halse was sacked but challenged the decision and eventually settled with the council in February that year, the same month he launched CultureSafe NZ.
The settlement agreement included that Halse not make any disparaging comments about the council.
The council later complained that Halse made 13 posts on the CultureSafe NZ Facebook page in December 2020 and January 2021 that breached the settlement where the council paid Halse a “considerable sum of money”.
Halse has put workplace bullying under the spotlight, hosting anti-workplace bullying training sessions, holding a national conference on the topic, and challenging laws.
He says he has found himself supporting suicidal employees on numerous occasions.
For his efforts, Halse has been nominated for New Zealander of the Year five times and has the backing of an international anti-bullying expert.
Hannah Tamaki, seen at The Freedom and Rights Coalition New Zealand lockdown and vaccination protest at Auckland Domain in November 2021, supported employment advocate Allan Halse outside the High Court at Hamilton. Photo / Brett Phibbs, PhibbsVisuals
But during bankruptcy proceedings in the High Court at Hamilton last September, lawyer Jesse Savage - representing Rangiura - described Halse’s actions as “thumbing his nose” at the ERA.
“Mr Halse has brought application after application with no basis,” Savage said. “He doesn’t explain the law on which he’s bringing the application other than in very general terms.”
In summing up what had led Rangiura to pursue liquidation and bankruptcy against Halse, Savage told the court the case was not as Halse portrayed.
“It’s not some vast conspiracy designed to subvert the legal system to cover up fraud.
“This is not a situation where judicial decision-makers including judges are colluding with lawyers to usurp Parliament’s power.”
He said if Halse were a lawyer he would have been held to account.
Halse asked for a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings until after an Employment Court judicial review.
But in a decision in September last year Employment Court Judge Kerry Smith struck out the application for judicial review and found the ERA did no more than hold Halse to the agreement he made not to disparage Rangiura, and that the decision was entirely within its jurisdiction.
Judge Smith said Halse’s question about whether Parliament intended to give the ERA jurisdiction to override the fundamental right to justice was “vexatious and an abuse of process”.
He revoked the non-publication order and dismissed the case.
A month later in the High Court at Hamilton, Halse fended off bankruptcy after making an eleventh-hour payment of $67,335 in penalties, paid for by his supporters.
He complained to Associate Judge Peter Andrew that there had been a miscarriage of justice in August when his company was liquidated but the judge said he could only deal with the proceedings before him.
The end is not nigh
Halse told the Herald he believed Judge Smith caused a miscarriage of justice by erring in law when he struck out the application for judicial review, and that this led to the liquidation of CultureSafe NZ Ltd and attempts to bankrupt him.
His legal team would file for judicial review in the Court of Appeal and this would overturn the penalties, fines, and costs imposed on him through the ERA and Employment Court, he said.
Halse said he believed a judicial review would demonstrate that Larmer acted outside her jurisdiction and that the ERA could not order him to take down Facebook posts.
“There is civil law to address defamation but what I have said is the truth and the truth is a defence against defamation in New Zealand. Rangiura threatened defamation but didn’t follow through for obvious reasons.”
Halse said under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act he had a right to justice through judicial review.
ERA members and Employment Court judges were not perfect and could make mistakes or demonstrate bias, he said.
And the repeated decisions going against him were a Slapp to suppress his advocacy, Halse claimed.
In November the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the United Kingdom warned lawyers not to engage in Slapps as the Government there looks to crack down on them.
The authority described a Slapp as abusive litigation aimed at silencing legitimate critics, to prevent publication on matters of public importance, such as academic research, whistleblowing or campaigning, or investigative journalism.
07 June 2022
Allan Halse and his supporters outside the High Court at Hamilton in June last year. Photo / Mike Scott
Examples of abusive conduct or misuse of the legal system include bringing cases or allegations without merit, making unduly aggressive and intimidating threats, or claiming misleading outcomes such as exaggerated cost consequences or imprisonment in a civil claim.
Halse claimed the Rangiura case was a Slapp against him that he intended to prove in the Court of Appeal.
In total, he said, he was involved in five cases where he believed Slapps were being used against him by corporate lawyers he claimed were being funded by taxpayers.
Halse, who is supported by co-founder of the American Workplace Bullying Institute Dr Gary Namie, denied he had bullied anyone and said the notion that he was a bully offended him.
He called it an “obligation to speak out publicly when we have clients who are being bullied to the point they are suicidal”.
Halse was critical of the ERA, believing it was “an inappropriate forum for workplace bullying cases”, which he said had caused some ERA members and Employment Court judges to view him as “someone who should be silenced”.
“I have continued to say that I will not stop speaking publicly about bad employers when we have clients - their employees - who are suicidal because of their employer’s actions.”
WorkSafe had never prosecuted a workplace bullying case, Halse said, and he claimed the employment relations process caused further psychological and physiological health harm to applicants who took their cases to the ERA and Employment Court.
He said as long as government policy allowed employees to be bullied to the point of contemplating suicide he would “publicly condemn those employers” he claimed enabled bullying behaviour.
“I will also continue to be critical of any ERA or Employment Court judges whose actions protect those bullying employers.”
Halse is preparing to file in the Court of Appeal next week and is also suing the Rangiura Trust Board, Norris Ward McKinnon, and two lawyers including Hood for “fraud”.
An application to strike out Halse’s fraud claim is scheduled to be heard on April 19 in the High Court at Hamilton.
Halse has renamed his company Hamilton Culturesafe and continues to advocate for employees and post on Facebook.
Timeline of litigation
March 2018: Halse signs a settlement with Rangiura Trust Board that stipulates neither can make disparaging remarks about the other. Shortly after, Halse posts negative comments about Rangiura on Facebook. Rangiura asks the Employment Relations Authority to make Halse comply with the settlement but Halse argues the ERA does not have jurisdiction.
August 2018: ERA member Rachel Larmer rules the authority has jurisdiction, that Halse expressly agreed to the settlement and that he must comply with it. The disparaging remarks continue, now including against Larmer and a further compliance order is issued. Non-publication orders are issued.
September 2018: Employment Court Judge Mark Perkins warns Halse to rein in his behaviour and cease his crusade, which is putting his client at risk of fines and imprisonment.
October 2018: Judge Perkins allows Halse more time to file a statement of defence. Halse continues to make disparaging remarks on social media.
November 2018: Larmer releases a 50-page ERA determination on liability in the case with wide-ranging findings critical of Halse’s conduct and putting CultureSafe NZ’s clients on notice they could face penalty claims too. In the Employment Court Judge Perkins fines Halse $2000 and orders him to pay costs of $3500 but does not issue a take-down order for the disparaging remarks.
March 2019: Larmer orders Halse and CultureSafe NZ to pay a total of $52,800 in penalties, including $30,000 to Rangiura, $16,800 to the Crown, and $6000 to Hood.
June 2019: Larmer orders Halse and CultureSafe NZ to each pay Rangiura $15,000 toward legal costs.
November 2019: Halse goes to the Employment Court to challenge two of the ERA determinations, seeks leave to challenge out-of-time five determinations and seeks orders to prevent Rangiura’s lawyers from acting further in the case.
September 2020: Judge Perkins issues his decision on the challenges, agreeing with the ERA and fining Halse and CultureSafe NZ $15,000 each, plus ordering them to each pay $11,400 to the Crown. They are ordered to pay a total of $30,000 to Rangiura for costs.
November 2020: Judge Perkins increases the costs payment to $37,000 because Halse’s applications, including to have Rangiura’s solicitors prevented from acting for the charity, “unnecessarily prolonged” the proceedings and “were so clearly without merit that their purpose could only be assessed as an attempt to create difficulties and obfuscate the issues raised in the challenges”.
December 2021: The Supreme Court rules there was no miscarriage of justice in the way the Court of Appeal dismissed Halse’s application for judicial review.
August 2022: CultureSafe NZ is liquidated in the High Court at Hamilton as a result of the proceedings. Bankruptcy is also sought against Halse who asks for a stay until the outcome of a judicial review. The Court of Appeal declines Halse’s application to appeal Judge Smith’s Employment Court decision declining his application to disqualify Norris Ward McKinnon from acting for Ranigura.
September 2022: Employment Court Judge Kerry Smith strikes out Halse’s application for judicial review saying Halse’s assertion the ERA did not have jurisdiction in the case was an “abuse of process”.
October 2022: Halse is saved from bankruptcy by a last-minute payment from supporters of the $67,355 he owed in penalties.
