Jasmine Woollett v Commissioner of Police [2026] NZERA 53

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about an overseas deployment and multiple claims of unjustified disadvantage. The full PDF is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

Jasmine Woollett was employed by New Zealand Police as a Senior Sergeant. She successfully applied for an overseas deployment to Fiji as a Senior Advisor in the Fiji Police Partnership Programme (FPPP) from March 2023.

Her July 2023 performance review was positive. Over time, her working relationship with her manager on deployment, Inspector Pakes, deteriorated and she raised concerns about workplace behaviour and management decisions.

In March 2024 she used Police's internal Kia T process to raise a bullying complaint. Police initially pursued a restorative / facilitation approach, but the matter did not resolve.

Police issued a letter of expectations in April 2024 and later sent correspondence in June 2024 that included adverse findings about her conduct. Ms Woollett said those findings were made without a fair process and harmed her employment.

She also pursued an AIPM visiting fellow role. Police were not obliged to support the application, but the Authority found Police relied on the earlier adverse findings when commenting on her performance in relation to that opportunity.

After her counsel raised personal grievances in July 2024, Police decided to end the Fiji deployment early and recall her to New Zealand on health and safety grounds. The Authority found Police did not consult her properly before deciding to repatriate, and this had flow-on impacts including the cessation of overseas allowances.

What the Authority had to decide

• Whether the challenged actions adversely affected Ms Woollett's employment (or a condition of her employment) and, if so, whether Police's actions and processes met the objective s 103A standard (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances).
• The specific actions challenged were: the April 2024 letter of expectations and June 2024 correspondence containing adverse findings; Police's response to her bullying complaint; Police's conduct around her AIPM visiting fellow application; and the decision to recall her from Fiji.
• If unjustified disadvantage was established, what remedies should be ordered (compensation for injury to feelings and compensation for loss of benefit), and whether any reduction should apply for contribution.
• The Authority also addressed non-publication, claimed contractual / good faith breaches, recommendations, and costs.

Key findings in plain English

• Letters and adverse findings: Police could raise expectations, but the June correspondence went beyond informal feedback and included adverse findings without a proper process. That was adverse to Ms Woollett and not what a fair and reasonable employer would do.
• Bullying complaint: Police relied on facilitation. Once it became clear facilitation was not resolving the complaint, Police needed to do more than repeat informal steps. Failing to properly deal with the complaint was an unjustified disadvantage.
• AIPM visiting fellow: Police were not obliged to support the application, but Police used the earlier adverse findings (made without fair process) when giving reasons and making negative comments about Ms Woollett's performance. That disadvantaged her.
• Recall from Fiji: The Authority found the decision was procedurally unjustified because Police failed to consult Ms Woollett before deciding to repatriate and denied her a meaningful chance to influence decisions about ongoing allowances. Substantive health and safety concern was not necessarily unreasonable, but the process failures meant the action was unjustified.
• Contribution: No reduction was made. The Authority did not find Ms Woollett's actions contributed to the unjustified disadvantages that were established.
• Other matters: Non-publication was declined. Separate breach claims and recommendations were largely declined or not made out. Costs were reserved.

Remedies and orders

The Authority made the following key orders (payable within 28 days):

• Police must pay $21,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (within 28 days).
• Police must also pay $5,599.27 under s 123(1)(c) as compensation for loss of benefit (within 28 days), linked to loss of overseas assignment allowances following the early ending of the deployment.
• Other claims were unsuccessful and no further special damages were awarded.
• Costs were reserved (a memorandum timetable applies if the parties cannot agree).

Why this case matters

• Overseas deployments still require fair process: operational constraints may be relevant, but they do not remove the need for consultation and procedural fairness.
• If you make adverse findings about an employee's conduct, you need a fair process. Otherwise those findings can create legal exposure and contaminate later decisions (like refereeing opportunities).
• If an employer chooses facilitation to address a bullying complaint, it needs a fallback plan if facilitation fails. Repeating informal steps may not be enough.
• Consultation is critical before ending an assignment or cutting allowances - the employee must have a real chance to influence the decision before it is made.

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.