Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision concerns an application for interim reinstatement by Steven David Mitchell, the former chief executive officer of Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated (TRU). TRU summarily dismissed Mr Mitchell for alleged serious misconduct on 20 March 2026. The Authority did not finally decide whether the allegations were made out. Instead, it considered whether Mr Mitchell had a sufficiently serious and arguable unjustified-dismissal case, whether permanent reinstatement remained arguable, where the balance of convenience lay, and what overall justice required pending the substantive hearing. The Authority found that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable case that the dismissal process had followed a predetermined path. It identified concerns arising from the late-2025 TRU review, the way review material appeared to feed into later disciplinary allegations, and Board communications that could show adverse and personalised views about Mr Mitchell had formed before the matter was resolved. It ordered that he be immediately reinstated to TRU's payroll only, at his former CEO salary, backdated to 21 March 2026. The order does not return him to actual CEO duties. The substantive challenge and the underlying allegations remain to be determined. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

This was an interim decision, not the final merits hearing

Mr Mitchell brought personal grievances after TRU dismissed him. His claims include unjustified dismissal, compensation, lost earnings, interim and permanent reinstatement, an alleged breach of good faith, and a disputed final-pay deduction. This determination dealt only with the interim reinstatement application. The Authority received affidavits and submissions but did not hear or cross-examine witnesses. It repeatedly emphasised that important factual disputes remain for the substantive investigation.

The interim question was therefore not whether Mr Mitchell had proved every allegation against TRU or whether TRU had proved serious misconduct. It was whether the dismissal challenge was seriously arguable and not frivolous or vexatious, whether permanent reinstatement remained an arguable eventual remedy, how each side would be affected by an interim order, and where the overall justice lay.

The review process became central to the predetermination concern

In late 2025, before the formal concerns and disciplinary allegations were raised, TRU obtained an organisational review. The review considered staffing, roles, governance, operations, culture, financial health and stakeholder relationships. It involved interviews with staff, stakeholders, Board members and external rugby-sector participants.

The Authority noted that the review report contained limited identified commentary about the CEO, while the evidence suggested more severe comments were later said to have been made orally to the Board. Mr Mitchell was not present when the reviewer reported to the Board and did not receive the report until he returned from leave. The underlying confidential interview material was not disclosed in a way that enabled him to know who had said what or answer the more adverse allegations said to have been conveyed to the Board.

The Authority placed particular weight on the way the review appeared to carry into the later process. A December 2025 letter raised performance, visibility, attendance and communication issues. One concern was framed through a "missing in action" theme, although the Authority noted that the review report's reference was not specifically about Mr Mitchell personally. It also recorded that the Board's letter had described the review as recommending that leadership be "replaced", whereas the report itself used a materially different formulation that leadership should be "addressed".

The serious-misconduct allegations still require testing

TRU's final decision treated several matters as serious misconduct. They included alleged inappropriate or coercive conduct in a discussion with a staff member, disclosure of confidential information to rugby delegates, extending two fixed-term contracts after an instruction to wait for further discussion, and expenses connected with Mr Mitchell's wife's travel on a Southland trip.

At the interim stage, the Authority was not prepared to resolve those allegations as facts or to make definitive findings that they amounted to serious misconduct. For example, it considered there was an arguable issue about whether the finding of coercive or intimidating conduct was stronger than the underlying staff evidence supported. It also considered that a one-off travel-expense issue, in a context where repayment had been offered and relevant policy or practice remained disputed, could not safely be characterised as a serious dishonesty finding without a careful and fair investigation.

The Authority made the same point about the alleged disclosure of the proposed change-manager arrangement and the fixed-term contract extensions. The relevant communications, instructions, confidentiality expectations and context remained disputed. Those matters may be central at the merits hearing, but they could not be finally decided on untested affidavit evidence.

Board communications created an arguable bias issue

The Authority also referred to internal Board communications disclosed in the interim application. It found that some messages went beyond the matters being openly put to Mr Mitchell and could be read as showing a dismissive or personalised attitude to his integrity, competence and ability.

Its concern was not that every private view held by a Board member necessarily invalidates a disciplinary process. The problem was the potential impact of those views where the same people were involved in the communications, process and decision-making. The Authority considered that references of that kind could arguably indicate a bias toward dismissal and a predetermined outcome rather than a genuinely open-minded assessment of the evidence and explanation.

The new 2026 remedy restrictions applied, but did not defeat the interim application

TRU argued that the Employment Relations Act 2000 amendments that commenced on 21 February 2026 could restrict or remove reinstatement and other remedies where an employee had contributed to the circumstances of a successful grievance. Mr Mitchell argued that the alleged predetermination had occurred earlier, before the amendments commenced.

The Authority did not accept that argument. The dismissal occurred on 20 March 2026 and the Authority proceeding was lodged on 10 April 2026. Both events fell after the commencement date, so the new regime applied on its face.

That did not resolve the interim application in TRU's favour. The Authority held that it could not, on the untested evidence, make a definitive finding of contribution or serious misconduct with the effect of excluding reinstatement. Those are issues for the substantive investigation and final determination.

Payroll reinstatement was workable; an immediate return to duties was not

The Authority accepted that the relationship between the TRU Board and its CEO was central to the organisation's functioning. It also accepted that the role was high-profile, outward-facing and potentially difficult to perform while the parties were in deep conflict. It considered the present relationship and the tenor of the Board communications made an immediate return to actual work duties unworkable on an interim basis.

But that did not mean an interim order should be refused altogether. Mr Mitchell had been left without income and had limited practical prospects of finding a comparable senior sport-administration role while the dispute remained publicly visible and unresolved. The Authority found that this financial detriment outweighed the detriment to TRU of placing him back on payroll without requiring a return to CEO duties.

The Authority also held that it remained arguable that permanent reinstatement could be reasonable and practicable after the evidence was tested. It was not prepared to treat present staff discomfort or breakdown in relationships as decisive, particularly where some of the difficulty might itself have resulted from TRU's conduct and communications.

Overall justice favoured immediate return to salary payments

In its final assessment, the Authority found a serious and materially supported unjustified-dismissal case, including strength in the claim that the process had become predetermined after the review and then merged into misconduct allegations. It found that the balance of convenience favoured Mr Mitchell, notwithstanding the lack of workability in a return to actual duties.

The resulting order was not a direction that TRU reinstate Mr Mitchell as an operating CEO. It was an immediate payroll-only reinstatement, at the salary rate applying on 20 March 2026, including a taxed back-payment from 21 March 2026 to the end of the current pay period and ongoing payments at the previous salary frequency until the substantive matter is decided.

Why this case matters

Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated is an important interim-reinstatement decision because it shows how the Authority approaches a dismissal of a senior executive where the evidential picture is contested and the employment relationship is plainly strained. The Authority did not treat the seniority of the CEO role, the alleged loss of trust and confidence, or the existence of serious allegations as automatic answers to interim relief.

Rather, it separated the two practical questions. A return to actual senior duties may be unworkable in the short term. Yet payroll reinstatement may still be just, particularly where the employee has a strongly arguable dismissal claim, the employer's process may have been predetermined, and the employee is likely to suffer greater financial harm while the merits case proceeds.

The decision also illustrates the significance of the 2026 amendments. The Authority accepted their application to a post-commencement dismissal and proceeding. However, it would not use an interim process to make the definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings needed to remove statutory remedies before the evidence had been tested.

Practical takeaways

• Keep reviews and discipline distinct: where an organisational review raises concerns about an employee, do not allow undisclosed adverse material or assumptions to become de facto disciplinary findings.
• Put the actual concern to the employee: do not use shorthand, paraphrased themes or changed language that exaggerates what a report actually says.
• Protect open-mindedness: people involved in investigation or outcome decisions should not send messages showing that dismissal, dishonesty or incapacity has already been assumed.
• Investigate serious allegations carefully: allegations affecting integrity, honesty or professional reputation require a sufficiently careful evidential foundation and a real opportunity to answer.
• Do not overstate untested allegations at an interim hearing: an assertion of serious misconduct may be relevant, but it will not necessarily justify a final contribution finding before evidence is tested.
• Consider conditional reinstatement: payroll-only reinstatement can preserve an employee's financial position where an immediate return to actual duties would be impracticable.
• Apply the 2026 amendments by the statutory timing rules: alleged earlier predetermination does not by itself avoid the new regime where dismissal and proceedings occurred after commencement.

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.