An employee terminated for allegedly destroying records
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has declined an application for interim reinstatement from a employee who was dismissed over allegations of destroying official records.
The employee was terminated in March 2025 for serious misconduct after his employer discovered he had performed a factory reset on his work laptop.
The termination followed an extended period of workplace tension. In early 2024, the employer began investigating the worker for allegedly using work time and resources to promote his private business.
The employer also raised concerns about the unauthorised use of work materials in his personal design portfolio and inconsistencies in his disclosure about external business interests.
Matters escalated in March 2024 when the employee went on sick leave and subsequently reset his work laptop before taking planned annual leave. Days later, he was arrested and charged with obtaining by deception. The device was returned to the employer by police in August, but all its data had been wiped.
The worker challenged the dismissal and sought interim reinstatement while awaiting a full hearing, which is set for later this month.
In his submission, the employee argued that the reset was a personal security measure, not an attempt to destroy evidence. He also pointed out that he is the sole income earner in his household while facing significant costs in defending himself against the criminal charges.
The employer opposed the reinstatement, arguing that bringing the employee back, even on a suspended basis, would place additional strain on its operations, particularly given the ongoing nature of both internal and criminal investigations.
The employer also expressed concern about the prospect of paying dual salaries if the employee was reinstated and then ultimately not retained.
In its decision, the ERA rejected the employee's request for interim reinstatement.
"I accept that on the untested evidence, there is an indication of significant relationship issues, especially regarding trust and confidence. They may have a negative impact should [the employee] be reinstated," the ERA ruled.
However, it noted that there is an "arguable case for permanent reinstatement" should the employee succeed with his unjustified dismissal claim.
While acknowledging the worker's financial hardship, the ERA also emphasised that an expedited hearing is scheduled for May 28, and that all matters, including the legality of the dismissal and any potential remedies, will be fully considered at that time.
"The overall interests of justice do not favour the granting of interim reinstatement in this case," the ERA stated.
Costs were reserved and will be addressed after the substantive decision is issued.
