Harbour manager’s dismissal ‘invalid’

Press, 20 December 1985, Page 2

Harbour manager’s dismissal ‘invalid’

PA Wellington Marlborough Harbour general manager’s dismissal in October 1984 by the board was invalid, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The court dismissed the board’s appeal against the Chief Justice’s High Court decision that the dismissal was invalid and awarded $2OOO costs to Mr Michael John Goulden. The case dates back to October 26 last year when by a majority vote the board resolved to end Mr Goulden’s employment and that he was to take three months special leave with pay immediately. A judicial review of proceedings was heard by the Chief Justice, Sir Ronald Davison, last December and he delivered judgment in Mr Goulden’s favour.

In his judgment, Sir Ronald said the board should reconsider its decision promptly and “must adopt procedures that are fair to the applicant so as to give him reasonable opportunity to answer allegations made against him.

“The board members should approach the inquiry with open minds, not closed, and be prepared to consider fairly any evidence and explanations given by the applicant." The board held a hearing in June and gave Mr Goulden a fresh three months notice of appeal. He lodged an appeal to an appeal board constituted under the Harbours Act, but this adjourned incomplete when the board gave notice of the appeal to the Appeal Court of the Chief Justice’s decision against the first dismissal.

“We were satisfied,” the presiding judge, Mr Justice Cooke said, “that while the appeal board’s uncertainty as to the effect of the pending appeal to this Court was understandable, there was in truth no bar to their continuing to hear and deciding the appeal.” His Honour said the reasons the Chief Justice held the dismissal invalid were bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the majority of the board members. The Court said that if

there were complaints against Mr Goulden he was entitled to a fair opportunity for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to his view.

“Difficult though it may be, members of an employing board are expected to strive to avoid prejudgment or bias much more determinedly than, on the Chief Justice’s virtually unchallenged findings, they did here in October, 1984. “When a dismissal follows on an inquiry into allegations against the officer, as here, and there has been a lack of fairness in the inquiry, it can be no answer to say that he has been given some contractual period of notice rather than being dismissed summarily for alleged misconduct or the like. The link between the dismissal and the unfair procedure is obvious. Putting it another way, there has never been the fair procedure to which the officer is entitled,” the Court said. Mr Goulden declined to comment on the decision when approached yesterday.