LMN v STC [2026] NZEmpC 137 - unauthorised reference checks and medical leave caused unjustified disadvantage

In a wide-ranging de novo challenge arising from a school employment dispute, LMN succeeded on two specific unjustified-disadvantage grievances. The Court found problems with the Board's unauthorised use of her CV references during its grievance investigation and with its treatment of medical certificates and sick leave. Her numerous wider claims were unsuccessful.

A broad challenge, but only two grievances succeeded

LMN's litigation involved a substantial number of allegations concerning her employment at a school. The Employment Court heard the matter by way of de novo challenge following the Authority determination. Most of the claims were not established.

Two discrete unjustified-disadvantage grievances did succeed. They concerned the use of personal information when investigating LMN's grievances and the handling of medical certificates and leave. It is important not to describe the judgment as a general finding that all of LMN's complaints were justified.

Former employers were contacted from her CV

LMN had supplied a CV when she applied for employment. While the Board was later dealing with her personal grievances, a person assisting the Board contacted principals of schools listed in her work history.

The Court did not accept that the original provision of the CV authorised those contacts for the later grievance investigation. By that stage the purpose was not to assess whether LMN should be hired for a role she had already held for months. The employer remained subject to obligations concerning the collection, holding and use of personal information.

Privacy and good faith can overlap with personal grievances

The unauthorised contacts were not treated merely as an abstract privacy issue. In the employment relationship, the way the Board used LMN's information also engaged contractual and statutory good-faith obligations. On the facts, the conduct amounted to an unjustified action disadvantaging her employment.

The decision therefore provides a useful bridge between privacy principles and the personal-grievance jurisdiction. An employee may have an employment-law grievance where misuse of personal information is an unjustified employer action affecting the employment relationship.

Medical certificates and leave

The second successful grievance concerned two medical certificates. The Court found that the employer failed to deal properly with those certificates when determining LMN's leave status and entitlements.

The point is fact-specific, but it reinforces a basic rule: once an employer receives relevant medical certification, it must genuinely consider it before deciding whether an absence is unpaid, unauthorised or otherwise disadvantageous to the employee.

Compensation and limited overall success

LMN was awarded $5,000 compensation in relation to the established disadvantages, with consequential correction of leave or wage entitlements as required by the judgment. Her success was narrow relative to the scale of the overall proceeding.

That limited success was also relevant to costs. The judgment is therefore useful not only for privacy and sick-leave issues, but as a reminder that succeeding on one or two grievances does not necessarily make a party substantially successful across a large case.

Why this case matters

The case gives practical content to the boundary between recruitment information and later workplace investigations. Employers should not assume that an old CV or reference list authorises fresh contact for a disciplinary or grievance purpose. For employees, it also illustrates how privacy-related conduct can amount to unjustified disadvantage when it occurs within and affects the employment relationship.

Read more Employment Court cases.

Read the full Employment Court judgment

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 Court judgment and related public material.