Regina Rasheed v Commissioner of Zayed College for Girls [2026] NZERA 326

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns the dismissal of Regina Rasheed, the long-serving principal of Zayed College for Girls. Mrs Rasheed had been principal for about 14 years before she was dismissed by the Commissioner on 17 June 2025. The ERA found that she was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the failure to properly progress and conclude a 2022 disciplinary process, unjustifiably disadvantaged by two suspensions, and unjustifiably dismissed. The ERA ordered reinstatement, lost wages from dismissal until reinstatement to payroll, reimbursement of 23 days sick leave, $40,000 compensation, and a $6,000 penalty against the Aotearoa Charitable Foundation Trust. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The short point

This was a large and complicated school employment case, but the central lesson is simple. When an employment agreement or collective agreement sets a specific process for complaints, discipline, competence and suspension, an employer must follow it carefully. That is especially so for a principal, where disciplinary allegations can affect a person's position, mana, professional standing, and future career.

The ERA did not accept that good intentions, complex school politics, or reliance on an external workplace investigator cured the process problems. The Commissioner was required to make her own fair assessment, use the collective agreement properly, distinguish performance from conduct, test serious allegations, and consider the underlying information where Mrs Rasheed had raised detailed factual disputes.

The result was a significant win for the employee: reinstatement, $40,000 compensation, lost wages, sick leave reimbursement, no contribution reduction, and a penalty against the Trust.

Background

Mrs Rasheed had been employed as principal of Zayed College for Girls since June 2011. The college is a state integrated special character Islamic secondary school for girls. It is not a large school, but the principal role was a significant leadership role within the school and its community.

The second respondent, Aotearoa Charitable Foundation Trust, was the proprietor of the college. It owned the land and buildings and was responsible for the special character of the college. The employer respondent was the Commissioner of Zayed College for Girls.

The background included significant disharmony in the management and governance of the college. There was tension between Mrs Rasheed and representatives of the Trust. In 2022 the Board of Trustees commenced a disciplinary investigation into alleged misconduct by Mrs Rasheed. That process was not promptly completed.

The relevant collective agreement mattered

Mrs Rasheed's terms of employment were governed by the Secondary Principals' Collective Agreement 2022-2025. That agreement contained specific provisions requiring the employer to act as a good employer, treat the principal fairly and properly, attempt informal discussion where concerns arise, and handle questions of competence, conduct and discipline in a way that protects the principal's mana and dignity as far as possible.

The agreement also distinguished between competence and discipline. Competence concerns were to be addressed through appropriate assistance and guidance, with a reasonable opportunity to remedy matters. Discipline required specific written matters of concern, a reasonable opportunity to respond, and, where needed, further inquiries before the employer could be satisfied as to the facts.

Suspension was also regulated. Unless exceptional circumstances existed, the principal had to be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions about the alleged misconduct and the appropriateness of suspension before suspension occurred. The period of suspension also had to be kept to the minimum possible time consistent with proper investigation and fair treatment.

The unresolved 2022 disciplinary process

In August 2022, the Board of Trustees commenced a disciplinary investigation into alleged misconduct by Mrs Rasheed. A subcommittee was appointed and Mrs Rasheed responded in detail in October 2022. After changes in Board dynamics and the Trust withdrawing its representatives, the process stalled.

When the Commissioner was appointed in March 2023, Mrs Rasheed asked what was happening with the outstanding disciplinary matter. She also helped the Commissioner access information about it. The ERA found those actions were consistent with Mrs Rasheed being concerned that serious allegations remained unresolved and wanting to clear her name.

The Authority found that the employer had a duty to fairly and faithfully investigate the disciplinary matters and conclude them as soon as reasonably practicable. The delay was significant and inconsistent with the collective agreement provisions requiring disciplinary processes to seek to maintain the dignity and mana of the principal. The ERA found that Mrs Rasheed suffered an unjustified disadvantage from the delay in progressing and concluding the 2022 disciplinary process.

The first suspension

In 2024, after a complaint and concerns about staff wellbeing, the Commissioner proposed paid special leave and then suspended Mrs Rasheed on 1 July 2024. The Commissioner said the suspension was required so an investigation could occur. Mrs Rasheed challenged that suspension and later obtained interim reinstatement from the ERA.

The Authority found that, at the time of the first suspension, it was not clear that a disciplinary process under the collective agreement had properly commenced. The Commissioner had referred to appointing a workplace investigator to ascertain the precise nature of what was alleged. That meant the Commissioner had not yet formed a view about the nature of the allegations as disciplinary or otherwise.

The collective agreement had a process for working through these kinds of concerns. The ERA found that process had not been followed. Mrs Rasheed was entitled to expect the employer to scrupulously adhere to the collective agreement, and the failure to do so caused disadvantage. The first suspension was an unjustified disadvantage.

The second suspension

Mrs Rasheed returned to work after interim reinstatement. A memorandum of understanding governed her return. On 15 September 2024 she was suspended again.

The second suspension followed the workplace investigator producing a table of allegations. The table contained 171 alleged concerns spanning back to 2015. The ERA found that the table included matters that were stale, matters covered by the personal assistance and guidance programme, and matters previously closed by the Commissioner.

The Authority found the Commissioner should have assessed what was properly in or out, what might reasonably be treated as competence or discipline, and whether informal discussion was required under the collective agreement. That assessment was reasonably within the Commissioner's ability, given the assessments already made about Mrs Rasheed's performance and engagement with the college.

Instead, the employer moved to suspension without properly using the collective agreement process. The ERA found Mrs Rasheed had established a personal grievance of unjustified disadvantage for the second suspension.

The workplace investigation and dismissal

The workplace investigation continued for many months. The workplace investigator's final report found 30 of 47 allegations proven and concluded that Mrs Rasheed had created a culture of fear and that her conduct amounted to bullying. The Commissioner then began a disciplinary process based on that report.

On 17 June 2025, Mrs Rasheed was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct. The Commissioner upheld 13 findings as amounting to material breach of the college's health and safety policy and conduct unbecoming of a principal.

The ERA accepted that some of the matters, if fairly established, could potentially amount to serious misconduct. But the process and the decision were not justified.

The Commissioner did not review the underlying evidence

A major problem was that the Commissioner had not read or reviewed the interview notes or evidence compiled by the workplace investigator and relied upon in the investigator's findings. The Commissioner argued that she had not simply rubber-stamped the investigator and that reviewing all underlying material was unnecessary. The ERA rejected that.

Mrs Rasheed had responded in detail to the investigation, raising serious concerns about contested evidence and conflicts. In those circumstances, the Commissioner needed to make further inquiry to be satisfied about the facts. The ERA found the failure to look beyond the final report was a fundamental and serious breach of the collective agreement.

Examples of evidential problems

The ERA identified several problems with the serious misconduct findings. Some allegations involved "yelling". Mrs Rasheed said she had a forceful voice and could be firm and assertive, but the allegations often lacked specificity and context. The Commissioner could not explain the benchmark used to assess yelling. In one example, the staff member concerned had not raised the matter as a complaint and had told the investigator they had not heard Mrs Rasheed yell at staff.

Another allegation involved the use of college resources and a claim about management units. The Authority recorded that this finding contained a significant mathematical error. The Commissioner, as an experienced education professional, could likely have assessed that error if she had reviewed the supporting material.

A further serious allegation concerned a staff member taking Mrs Rasheed's personal car for a warrant of fitness during school hours. The workplace investigator did not interview the staff member concerned, and nor did the Commissioner. At the ERA investigation, that staff member gave evidence that he volunteered to help Mrs Rasheed, that there was a long family and community association, that he saw it as discharging religious obligations, and that college funds were not used. The ERA found a fair and reasonable employer could not have reached a serious misconduct finding on that allegation in the known circumstances.

Performance concerns were mixed with conduct concerns

Another important flaw was the mixing of performance and conduct matters. The collective agreement had separate pathways for competence and discipline. The ERA found the Commissioner should have made a preliminary assessment of the concerns before embarking on a large investigation.

That assessment needed to be informed by the known employment environment, the personal assistance and guidance programme, earlier closed matters, stale matters, and the specific provisions of the collective agreement. The failure to fairly assess the concerns as performance and/or conduct meant the disciplinary process was flawed from the outset. The later disciplinary steps did not cure that defect.

The dismissal was unjustified

The dismissal decision was based on cumulative findings of misconduct and serious misconduct. Because a number of those findings were unjustified, and because the process contained serious defects, the ERA found the dismissal could not be justified or reasonable in all the circumstances.

The ERA accepted that the Commissioner had good intentions and wanted the best for the college, its pupils, staff and community. But good intentions did not change the legal test. The Commissioner still had to act as a fair and reasonable employer could have acted and comply with the collective agreement and good faith obligations. Mrs Rasheed's dismissal was unjustified.

Reinstatement was ordered

Reinstatement was the primary remedy. The Commissioner and the Trust opposed reinstatement. The Commissioner argued it would negatively affect staff, disrupt stability, and conflict with the fact a new principal had been appointed. The Trust argued its relationship with Mrs Rasheed had irretrievably broken down.

The ERA found reinstatement was practical and reasonable. Mrs Rasheed could perform the role of principal and had held it for 14 years. There was no professional body barrier to her return. The Teaching Council had considered the mandatory report of serious misconduct and deemed the matter not appropriate for further disciplinary process.

The ERA also noted that the Commissioner had been on notice from the outset that Mrs Rasheed sought reinstatement. A new principal had been appointed with knowledge of these proceedings and the reinstatement claim. The ERA was not persuaded that reinstatement should be refused because a new appointment had been made.

Reinstatement was ordered on conditions:

• Immediate reinstatement to payroll.
• Within 21 days: the parties were to agree a process for Mrs Rasheed to return to the position of principal of Zayed College for Girls.

Lost wages and sick leave

The ERA ordered reimbursement for lost wages from 17 June 2025 to reinstatement to payroll. Although Mrs Rasheed had not looked for other work after dismissal, she had pursued reinstatement and undertaken professional development. The ERA found that remedy appropriate in the circumstances.

The ERA also ordered reimbursement of 23 days sick leave. It accepted that Mrs Rasheed experienced workplace stress for which she took sick leave and that the established personal grievances contributed to that loss. The parties were given leave to return to the ERA if there were calculation issues.

$40,000 compensation

The ERA awarded $40,000 as a global award for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. It accepted that Mrs Rasheed was deeply connected to the college through her role, family, faith and community associations, and that her mana and dignity had been damaged.

The evidence included the impact of the workplace stress, investigation and dismissal on Mrs Rasheed's health and wellbeing. The ERA was satisfied she had suffered harm under each of the statutory heads in section 123(1)(c)(i).

No contribution reduction

The ERA considered whether any remedy should be reduced for contribution under section 124. It made no reduction.

The Authority did not accept that Mrs Rasheed contributed to the delay in the 2022 disciplinary process, which was initiated and controlled by the employer. It did not accept that she was to blame for refusing paid special leave in circumstances where the Commissioner had advised an intention to implement a process into conduct and/or performance matters. Mrs Rasheed was entitled to expect the employer would comply with the collective agreement.

The ERA also recorded that none of the upheld misconduct allegations had been found by the Authority to have been made in compliance with the statutory justification test. Although Mrs Rasheed accepted there were performance matters she needed to address, the proper process had not been followed.

Good faith, breach of the employment agreement, and penalties

The ERA found breaches of the employment agreement and the statutory obligation of good faith by the employer. However, it did not consider that a penalty against the employer was appropriate.

The Trust was treated differently. The Authority found that the Trust, through its representative, had instigated and aided the employer's breach of the employment agreement by contributing to the delay in completing the 2022 disciplinary process. The relevant conduct included seeking to end Mrs Rasheed's employment by participating in a meeting where her resignation was sought in exchange for money, raising concerns directly with the Ministry while also expressing an intention to withdraw from the integration agreement, and not providing a report of its actions to the Board.

The ERA imposed a $6,000 penalty against the Trust. There appears to be a drafting inconsistency in the determination: one paragraph says the Trust is ordered to pay half the penalty to Mrs Rasheed, while the summary order states that the Trust is to pay a $6,000 penalty to Mrs Rasheed. The article follows the summary order at the end of the determination.

Why this case matters

This determination is important for school employment disputes, principal discipline, and any workplace where a contract or collective agreement contains detailed disciplinary and competence provisions. The employer cannot skip over those provisions because the workplace is difficult, the issues are politically sensitive, or an external investigator has been appointed.

It also shows the importance of separating performance concerns from disciplinary allegations. Performance or competence concerns may require assistance, guidance and a reasonable opportunity to improve. Misconduct concerns require specificity, disclosure, opportunity to respond, and a fair decision-maker making a proper assessment of the evidence. Mixing the two can make the whole process unsafe.

The reinstatement order is significant. The fact that a new principal had been appointed did not defeat reinstatement. The ERA treated reinstatement as the primary remedy and focused on practicability and reasonableness, not on whether the employer had already filled the role after dismissal.

Practical takeaways

• Follow the agreement: if a collective agreement sets a process for competence, discipline or suspension, the employer must comply with it.
• Delay can be a grievance: leaving serious allegations unresolved can unjustifiably disadvantage an employee.
• Suspension requires care: suspension is not automatic, especially where the agreement requires prior submissions unless exceptional circumstances exist.
• Separate competence from misconduct: performance concerns and disciplinary allegations need different handling.
• Do not outsource the decision: a workplace investigator can gather facts, but the employer must still make a fair and informed decision.
• Review the underlying evidence where needed: detailed disputes, credibility issues, and evidential gaps may require the decision-maker to look beyond the final report.
• Be careful with cumulative misconduct: if a dismissal depends on an accumulation of findings, and some findings are not justified, the dismissal may fall over.
• Good intentions are not enough: an employer may mean well but still fail the legal test.
• Reinstatement remains real: even where the workplace relationship is difficult, reinstatement can be ordered if practical and reasonable.
• Third parties can face penalty risk: a proprietor or related body may face consequences if it aids or instigates breach of an employment agreement.

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.