Health employment dispute draws Māori King’s interest
The boss of a health provider has been suspended from her role, leading to a protracted dispute and questions from the Māori King.
Suspended chief executive Terina Moke has filed a personal grievance against Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust about its investigation into claims she bullied staff.
The trust runs four medical clinics in the Waikato and other community health services, according to its website, and was active in the Covid response.
Moke recently made an unsuccessful bid to get the Employment Relations Authority to end her suspension and stop the trust making any employment decisions before her personal grievance claim was heard.
The spat has attracted interest from the Māori King and, according to the Employment Relations Authority ruling, has involved “at least five Hamilton law firms and one employment advocate”.
An ERA ruling dated October 16 revealed Moke alleged that the trust “acted unfairly in how it arranged and carried out its inquiry into two complaints of bullying and harassment made against her”.
“Ms Moke says the Board has unjustifiably disadvantaged her by failing to act in good faith and in accordance with tikanga while looking into these complaints.”
The complainants, named as Mr A and
Mr B, are both members of the RHOT senior leadership team.
The trust board suspended Moke pending a final report into the allegations - a move she said “would undermine her mana and would further damage relationships”.
Moke was suspended on March 8 this year, ahead of a draft report into the bullying allegations and “around this time the Office of the Māori King asked for information about the investigation”, the ERA ruling noted.
“An email from a senior official said the query was sparked by the office receiving ‘a significant number of emails expressing dismay and serious concern’ about the Board and having come ‘largely from staff’ at RHOT.”
The ruling noted that while a senior adviser to the King met with the trust board chair, no copy of the draft report was handed over.
“As Ms Moke, when asked by the Board, declined to agree to its release”.
The draft report and a later final report found “multiple findings of unreasonable actions or inaction” by Moke towards Mr A, and “concluded that the allegation of her bullying Mr A was substantiated”.
This prompted a personal grievance from Moke, alleging the investigation failed to uphold tikanga, that there were delays in the process and unfair suspension.
The ERA ruling noted that Moke bore responsibility for some of the delay, but “she had the stronger argument that the length of time taken for the investigation was unfair”.
She also had a strong argument RHOT “could have done more from the outset to consider how relevant tikanga principles should be applied in the investigation”.
The ruling also noted, however, “this is not a one sided argument”.
“The Board... was open to addressing matters in a tikanga manner at the outset,” the ruling said.
“The circumstances of Ms Moke’s case, while of great importance to her, did not raise issues sufficiently severe, clear and rare to override the general principle against investigation during an employer’s process.
“Ms Moke’s application for interim orders preventing RHOT making any decision about whether or not to terminate her employment is declined.”