Five years ago, we reported on an employment matter that was brewing, involving lay employment advocate Allan Halse (who specialises in workplace bullying) and Hamilton City Council which was his employer for six years until January 2014.

Dragging up the ancient past  14 January 2021

“Hamilton City Council is suing former employee Allan Halse for allegedly breaching a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement. The original dispute officially ended on 14 February 2014, the date of a completed mediation.

Soon after leaving the Council, Mr Halse went into the employment advocacy business. In late 2020, Mr Halse, through his company Culturesafe NZ Ltd, was engaged by a client who happened to be an employee of Hamilton City Council.

He described what he believed to be a severe workplace bullying problem, on Culturesafe’s Facebook page. The Council, aware of his previous employment with it, got his HR file, dug out a Record of Settlement from the 2014 mediation, looked at the non-disparagement clause therein, and initiated a claim in the ERA.

Trying to bring proceedings on a stale matter, ie: more than six years old, is unusual. That raises the question of how Hamilton ratepayers would feel if they knew their money was being spent soothing the ruffled feathers of Council managers accused of bullying. “

Subsequently, in February 2022, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) fined Halse $9,000 (£4,000) for criticising the Council for its bullying problem and disclosing the existence of his own employment settlement agreement (seven years after media publicised its existence without incident).   The ERA found that the criticism amounted to disparagement. 

Halse’s company was also fined $9,000, but it was placed in liquidation six months later for unrelated reasons. 

The Employment Court, which hears challenges (appeals) of ERA determinations, notes that Council is represented by Mark Hammond and Tom Jarman, Halse is self-represented, and Halse’s former company is represented by its liquidator.  The liquidator’s position is unknown but it is difficult to see what he hopes to achieve, given that Council would be just another creditor if the fine was upheld, and costs added, and there’s probably very little money to distribute anyway.

As to whether or not five years of activities in the employment jurisdiction represent good value for Hamilton ratepayers’ money, I couldn’t comment, being from Lower Hutt.

Judge Joanna Holden will hear the matter on February 19-20 in Hamilton.

Tristam Price, Editor