MOKE v RAUKURA HAUORA O TAINUI TRUST [2025] NZERA 48

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, In July 2023, after considering a final report provided by the investigator about the first complaint, the Trust advised Ms Moke that it had reached a preliminary view she should be dismissed. After that, The Authority found the Trust had breached duties to inform Ms Jacobsen of the details of the complaints and arrangements for their investigation. 1 Moke v Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust [2023] NZERA 603. 2 Jacobsen v Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust [2024] NZERA 446. Later, It continued (bold emphasis added): Depending on the seriousness of the performance concern, or degree of misconduct alleged, the (quoted wording omitted) may be as simple as holding some fact- finding meetings. The determination records that The Trust's disciplinary policy also included a clause on suspension which said (quoted wording omitted). The Authority notes that Mr A's letter of complaint, dated 7 July 2022, said his complaint was triggered by Ms Moke's conduct in a meeting with him on 21 June 2022. Ultimately, They set out a process for interviewing witnesses and then reporting factual findings on whether the allegations were proven and, if so, whether the behaviour amounted to bullying and harassment of the type classified as serious misconduct under the Trust's policies. In the end, Ms Twaddle had interviewed Mr A on 11 August about his complaint and he resigned from his position with the Trust on 21 September.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are MOKE (employee) and RAUKURA HAUORA O TAINUI TRUST (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 20 March and 17, 18 and 19 April 2024 (4 days).
• Authority member: Robin Arthur.

Key events described

• In July 2023, after considering a final report provided by the investigator about the first complaint, the Trust advised Ms Moke that it had reached a preliminary view she should be dismissed.
• The Authority found the Trust had breached duties to inform Ms Jacobsen of the details of the complaints and arrangements for their investigation. 1 Moke v Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust [2023] NZERA 603. 2 Jacobsen v Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust [2024] NZERA 446.
• It continued (bold emphasis added): Depending on the seriousness of the performance concern, or degree of misconduct alleged, the (quoted wording omitted) may be as simple as holding some fact- finding meetings.
• The Trust's disciplinary policy also included a clause on suspension which said (quoted wording omitted).
• Mr A's letter of complaint, dated 7 July 2022, said his complaint was triggered by Ms Moke's conduct in a meeting with him on 21 June 2022.
• They set out a process for interviewing witnesses and then reporting factual findings on whether the allegations were proven and, if so, whether the behaviour amounted to bullying and harassment of the type classified as serious misconduct under the Trust's policies.
• Ms Twaddle had interviewed Mr A on 11 August about his complaint and he resigned from his position with the Trust on 21 September.
• Proposed change of process [60] On 20 June 2023 the Board advised, through its representatives, that it had resolved to depart from its earlier agreed process for the investigation and to progress the investigation on the basis of the draft report about Mr A's complaint.
• Ms Twaddle replied to Ms Moke's message about postponing the 11 July meeting by advising she remained available to meet that day to hear Ms Moke's feedback about the draft report on Mr A's complaint and her feedback on Mr B's allegations.
• Before submissions were heard on that injunction application the parties attended further mediation, on 14 August, at the direction of the Authority and Ms Moke attended a further meeting, on 8 September, to provide her feedback on the Board's proposal to dismiss her.
• He described the Trust's adherence to kaupapa Maori as guiding the initial decision not to suspend Ms Moke while the concerns raised by the complaints of Mr A and Mr B were investigated and the initial private mediation held to discuss kanohi ki te kanohi how those complaints might be resolved.
• Reliance on incomplete investigation [109] There was a significant flaw in the investigator's report on Mr A's complaint that the Board had relied on in making its decision to dismiss Ms Moke.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $36,000
• Costs: Costs awarded.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.