FHE v Auckland Transport [2026] NZERA 552

Auckland Transport was justified in dismissing parking officer FHE after finding serious misconduct. But it had already effectively suspended him for two days following a surprise meeting without first completing a fair consultation process. The Employment Relations Authority upheld the dismissal, found the initial suspension caused unjustified disadvantage, and awarded $3,000 compensation.

Serious allegations investigated

FHE had worked for Auckland Transport since January 2019. In February 2025 AT began investigating concerns about his conduct towards a former employee with whom he had previously been in a relationship. The concerns involved messages, use of work systems and the amount of work time he spent near her new workplace.

AT ultimately concluded that FHE had used work time and resources in conduct that caused the former employee to feel intimidated and harassed, and had impersonated other AT employees in communications. It treated the conduct as serious misconduct and dismissed him on 7 May 2025.

A surprise meeting and immediate removal from work

On the morning of 18 February, FHE was unexpectedly called to a meeting. He was given a letter outlining allegations and proposing suspension, but he had not received advance notice of the meeting or the information beforehand. Although he arranged for a colleague to attend, he had no meaningful chance to seek advice or proper representation.

The managers said FHE agreed to go home while suspension was considered. In practice he was required to return work property, escorted while collecting belongings and prevented from working for the remainder of 18 February and the following day. His access to AT systems was also disabled.

Calling this an agreed period away from work did not change its real effect. The Authority found that FHE had been suspended in fact before the formal decision was made.

The first two days were unjustified

AT had good reason to consider suspension because of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential use of its systems and resources. Its formal suspension from 20 February was justified.

The problem was the way AT treated 18 and 19 February. FHE did not receive adequate notice, the information needed to respond, a proper opportunity to obtain representation, or a genuine chance to comment before he was sent away. The consultation promised by the proposal letter had effectively been overtaken by immediate action.

The Authority therefore found unjustified disadvantage limited to those initial two days. FHE remained on full pay, so the disadvantage did not cause lost remuneration.

The later dismissal was justified

The Authority examined the wider disciplinary process separately. AT disclosed the central allegations, supplied relevant GPS, ticketing and communications information, held disciplinary meetings, investigated FHE's explanations and genuinely considered his responses.

Some information had been withheld too broadly in an attempt to protect privacy, and AT had been slow to begin investigating the original complaint. But those shortcomings did not ultimately cause unfair treatment in the dismissal decision.

AT had a sufficient evidential basis to find serious misconduct and was entitled to reject FHE's explanations. Dismissal fell within the range of responses available to a fair and reasonable employer. The unjustified-dismissal grievance therefore failed.

Compensation for the initial suspension

FHE was shocked by the unexpected meeting and visibly agitated. He felt humiliated by being unable to continue working and by having to collect his belongings before leaving. The Authority awarded $3,000 for the distress caused during 18 and 19 February.

The award was not reduced for contribution. The misleading responses FHE gave later in the disciplinary investigation did not contribute to AT's earlier failure to consult fairly before the initial suspension.

Why this case matters

FHE v Auckland Transport shows that each employer action is assessed on its own facts and timing. AT ultimately proved serious misconduct and a justified dismissal, but that did not erase the separate disadvantage caused when it acted before completing consultation over suspension.

Employers should avoid implementing a proposed suspension through informal directions to leave, surrender equipment or lose system access before hearing the employee. The substance of what occurs matters more than the label placed on it.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.