Sympathy and a loss for Rankin

Christine Rankin suffered no legal wrong in her time as Winz boss, the Employment Court says. FRANCESCA MOLD reports.

Christine Rankin hid away in a secret "bolthole" yesterday as the decision to dismiss her $1.25 million lawsuit against the Crown was made public by the Employment Court.

Chief Judge Tom Goddard said the former Work and Income New Zealand boss had had a harrowing experience working for the Government and was entitled to considerable sympathy.

"But ... my sole concern is with legal issues. It seems on proper analysis that the plaintiff has suffered no legal wrong."

Judge Goddard made it clear Mrs Rankin's chances of reappointment to her $250,000-a-year position were "highly speculative" and even if he had been persuaded that she deserved compensation it would not have been a "worthwhile amount".

The decision was described by the Government yesterday as a vindication.

Mrs Rankin, who issued a statement through her lawyer, said she was disappointed and there were no winners in the case.

Her lawyer, Michael Quigg, indicated it was possible she would appeal or lodge a sexual harassment case against the ministers and officials who attacked her dress sense and the length of her skirts.

During the 2 1/2-week case, which began in June, Mrs Rankin shocked the court with detailed evidence about conversations with ministers and senior public servants.

She described a meeting with Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet chief Mark Prebble in which he said her earrings were a sexual come-on, her short skirts a distraction and that he could distinguish her breast moving behind her shirt.

Social Services Minister Steve Maharey and his associate, Ruth Dyson, were also accused of commenting negatively on her personal style and calling for her to make changes so Mr Maharey, could take the credit for the transformation.

Mrs Rankin claimed their treatment of her and the alleged unfair decision by her employer, State Services Commissioner Michael Wintringham, not to reappoint her, under pressure from a Government which disliked her, deserved compensation.

She claimed $770,778 for loss of future earnings, $400,000 for loss of reputation causing harm to her chances of finding a new job and exemplary damages of $50,000. She also wanted her job at Work and Income back.

Although Judge Goddard ruled clearly in favour of the Crown yesterday, he had some criticisms of how it had handled the case and some of the key figures it represented.

He said if the Crown and Mrs Rankin's lawyers had dealt properly with the legal process of filing a memorandum before the case outlining the facts in dispute and the issues in the case, it was likely Dr Prebble's evidence would not have been heard.

The evidence that sparked the most public outrage was, ironically, dismissed as irrelevant by the judge.

In the witness box, Dr Prebble said he was outraged at an outfit Mrs Rankin wore which he claimed displayed a large amount of breast.

"I was sitting to her side ... and every time she moved I found that I was having to see an embarrassingly large amount of breast exposed. I didn't like it," he told the court.

Judge Goddard said Dr Prebble had taken the "adventurous course" of offering Mrs Rankin advice about her dress.

But "none of this evidence should have been given.

"None would have been if the parties had attended properly to hearing management, for I would have stopped it before it started ... "

Judge Goddard also commented on the absence of State Services Minister Trevor Mallard from the witness box.



"I cannot speculate as to what he may have said but I can at least draw the inference from normal experience of the ordinary course of the conduct of litigation that his evidence is likely to have been briefed and that if he felt able to confirm what Mr Wintringham, Mr Maharey and Ms Dyson told me, he would no doubt have come forward to say so."

Judge Goddard discussed the incident early on in Mrs Rankin's career at Work and Income when the department was heavily criticised for chartering a jet to fly staff to a conference at Wairakei Resort, near Taupo.

"There is no doubt that some Opposition MPs seized upon the affair with no little glee. The Labour Party made it publicly clear that there was no future for Christine Rankin if it should win the election."

At the time, there were scathing comments in the media attributed to Mr Maharey, then Opposition welfare spokesman, describing Mrs Rankin as a "cocktail waitress with earrings longer than her skirts".

Judge Goddard said he accepted Mr Maharey's denial on oath that he said this but found that later on, when appointed a minister, he had made personal comments critical of Mrs Rankin's dress.

Judge Goddard goes through the details of a meeting between Mrs Rankin and Mr Maharey on December 20, 1999, less than two weeks after the minister was sworn in.

"When she arrived at the minister's office there was a large media presence waiting for her. Red wine on the floor, symbolising blood, greeted her. It was thought by witnesses to have been tipped there by a whimsical reporter," the judge said.

He accepted Mrs Rankin's evidence about the meeting because it was supported by a manager who took notes.

It was at this meeting that Mr Maharey criticised Mrs Rankin's clothing, accessories and hair style. Judge Goddard said the difficulty was that Mrs Rankin was not prepared to pay any attention to suggestions to change her dress sense.

"If as a result of such approaches, she had taken to wearing clothes to work with which she felt uncomfortable she may have had some ground for complaint."

During the meeting Mr Maharey made extensive use of indecent expletives, "which I do not need to repeat", said the judge.

"On the evidence I heard, the minister was not using them, as some people do, as thoughtless punctuation but rather deliberately and with feeling for emphasis. Clearly this was an inappropriate way for a minister to address any chief executive, let alone a female one."

Judge Goddard then turned to the period of March to May last year which included an investigation into concerns about the department.

At that time, Mr Wintringham asked his deputy, Ross Tanner, to investigate the botch-up and sought legal advice on whether it was sufficient grounds to sack Mrs Rankin.

"The plaintiff complains that she was unaware of these steps being taken but once again, I do not think that is a valid complaint in itself," said Judge Goddard.

This evidence was particularly relevant because it indicated Mr Wintringham was developing mounting anxiety about Mrs Rankin.

Judge Goddard said there was no doubt Mrs Rankin was a person of outstanding ability and drive.

He expressed concern that only scant efforts were made to find her another job in the public service after a 20-year career.

"That seems to be contrary to the conventional way of dealing with such situations and can do little for morale at the top of the public service."