On August 15 this year PPK was summarily dismissed, having already raised a red flag with the ERA by claiming the employers had retaliated for a “whistleblowing” disclosure.
The respondents denied PPK had personal grievances and opposed the remedies sought, and PPK’s application for interim reinstatement.
The worker held different roles including call centre operator and head operator/supervisor.
PPK alleges that in March 2022 a senior person from within the company asked that driving jobs be directed to to preferred drivers.
From then, PPK continued to raise concerns about the way work was being allocated to drivers, but the respondents say PPK “repeatedly harassed” the senior figure about “favouritism, nepotism and corruption”.
PPK denied the respondents’ claim that the accusation was followed by a request for a pay rise, implying that PPK would keep their allegation quiet if the pay rise was received.
In February this year, PPK alleged in a letter sent to the senior company figure that he was “engaging in inappropriate and unethical practices”, and referenced nepotism and favouritism in how work was allocated to drivers.
PPK hoped the company senior figure would “halt all the unethical practices forthwith” otherwise evidence would be sent to public service departments, a union and an industry competitor.
The respondents said an investigation into PPK’s allegation of favouritism in the allocation of work found that the way in which jobs were allocated to drivers was both lawful and reasonable.
After the investigation was concluded in March this year PPK was advised of a proposal to suspend them from work while an investigation took place into the allegations made, including the threats to report confidential information to a competitor.
The third allegation was based on a letter stating PPK had “proposed an unlawful practice of directing jobs to a driver and receiving a kickback”.
The fourth allegation was based on another driver’s letter, alleging PPK had used company systems to access information regarding driver earnings.
PPK remained absent from work after not completing their shift on March 29, and returned for several days in April until their final day which appeared to the authority to be on April 23 this year.
The respondents proposed meetings, but PPK was said to be off work on ACC due to an accident.
Medical information showed PPK was certified fit for a gradual return from June 19, increasing to fulltime by August.
On June 23 this year PPK raised a personal grievance saying they had been unlawfully suspended and retaliated against through disciplinary proceedings.
Correspondence followed until PPK was told in August they were summarily dismissed for reasons including allegations of attempts at blackmail and threats against senior management, using an IT system to access information and allegedly planning to engage in an unlawful practice of receiving a “kickback” for directing jobs to a driver.
PPK says the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unjustified, and the ERA has found PPK has met the threshold for an arguable case of unjustified dismissal.
PPK’s application for interim reinstatement has succeeded before substantive investigation of the personal grievances.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
