News
How the Employment Court gets the right result
Alfred Hitchcock will be remembered as the master of suspense - an old fashioned director who was able to electrify mysterious and eerie crime stories.
In such great classics as Vertigo and Rear Window Hitchcock used his unique ability to create a level of expectation in his viewers: what you saw looked right, seemed right - but inside you just knew that something had to be wrong. Hitchcock would, of course, then deliver on those misgivings by providing a twist in his story's tail.
Some employment law judgments are, at least in this respect, a little bit like Hitchcock epics. The scene with which we are presented seems right, has all the outward appearances of being right - but just feels wrong. What can the Employment Court do to provide the appropriate outcome?
An answer is evident in the Employment Court's recent decision in Murray & Murray v The Attorney General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department (Unreported, Employment Court, 9 July 2002).
Mr and Mrs Murray were both employed by the Inland Revenue Department as customer services officers. There is no issue that they were good at their jobs, and that they performed well.
The Murrays' story began several months after they commenced employment, when they asked for time off work to appear in the District Court. The reason for this court attendance was that Mr and Mrs Murray had been charged with benefit fraud offences.
As one might imagine, this fact caused some disquiet with the Murrays' employer - and enquiries were made as a result.
It transpired that, prior to starting work with the Inland Revenue Department, each of the Murrays had been charged with benefit fraud offences. The Murrays had pleaded guilty to these charges, and had generally been co operative with their prosecutors.
Prior to entering into employment each of the Murrays had been asked to sign a form clarifying whether they had been convicted of an offence. Guidelines were provided about the types of offences which might be regarded as unacceptable for potential employees of IRD.
In response to this question, each of the Murrays indicated that they had not been convicted of any offences - being truthful responses, because neither had been convicted at that time.
This situation put the employer in something of a quandary. Outwardly, the Murrays' conduct was difficult to fault. They had told the truth when completing their pre employment application. Further, they had not committed any criminal act during the period of their employment.
Despite this, however, the Murrays' employer concluded that the situation simply did not feel right - and decided to dismiss both Mr and Mrs Murray. The Murrays took grievances against the IRD, alleging that they had been unjustifiably dismissed.
Before the Employment Court, the Murrays' counsel pointed out that the nature of the employment relationship did not require employees to offer up all information about themselves - particularly if that information might be disadvantageous to obtaining employment. The employees' obligation was limited to providing truthful answers to any questions that were put to them: this is, of course, exactly what the Murrays had done.
The Court agreed with this reasoning, and held that the employer had acted incorrectly by concluding that the Murrays had committed serious misconduct in their employment. They had not breached any obligation of trust and confidence, nor had they breached their obligation of good faith towards their employer.
Nevertheless, the Court also took the view that the Murrays' situation did not sit well in terms of its overall fairness. The employer had repeatedly laid down ground rules for acceptability of applicants for employment - and the Murrays had agreed to those rules. The Murrays sought to place a rigid reliance on the letter of the law when their situation had no merit.
In this way, the Court held that equity and good conscience would not permit the Murrays to complain about the termination of their employment. It relied upon an inherent jurisdiction to find fair and just solutions, and found in favour of the employer. As a result, the Murrays' claims were dismissed, and a decision entered in favour of the employer.
Like a good Hitchcock thriller, this case serves as a reminder that even where circumstances may appear (at least in a strict legal interpretation) to be correct, a Court will not stand by and allow an unfair result where to do so would be contrary to fairness and equity. Where cases such as this present difficult dilemmas the Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to ensure that justice is served.
