A businessman who was wrongfully dismissed from his company while police investigated him for suspected money laundering has received compensation and been reinstated to his position.
The man, known as Mr A, who had worked for the unnamed company for two years, was never charged with an offence.
Mr A's employers were ordered to pay him $2000 and reinstate him in his role as local business manager, a recently released Employment Relations Authority decision said.
Police searched a local branch of the company on March 19 and Mr A's home the next day.
While the company knew police had launched an investigation, the man told the authority the raid came as a complete surprise.
On the same day police searched his home, he was brought in for a formal police interview which lasted five hours, the decision said.
The company then carried out its own disciplinary investigation.
The employer told the authority the fact police were conducting a criminal investigation and had executed warrants raised concerns over the company's continuing trust and confidence in the man.
His employers met him at the police station immediately after his formal meeting with a proposal for his suspension and a number of questions about his alleged failure to declare certain monetary exchanges.
They also alleged he failed to refer certain client dealings to his manager and failed to keep client information confidential, the decision said.
The man's lawyer requested the company's investigation be postponed so as not to interfere with the Mr A's chance of a fair trial, but the company refused.
The company told the authority it carried out a fair and proper disciplinary investigation, which was modified to ensure his right to silence was not jeopardised.
However, the company determined it had suffered an irreparable loss of trust and confidence in him, resulting in his dismissal.
It outlined preliminary reasons for Mr A's dismissal on May 29.
"The police investigations could have a negative impact upon the company's workplace and raise important questions about the trust and confidence the company had in Mr A as one of its employees.
"Regardless of whether charges have been laid, the police investigations could impact negatively on the company's reputation within the local area and more broadly," the company said in a letter.
The authority said the man's suspension and dismissal was unjustified and ordered the company to pay compensation to him.
It was also ordered he be reinstated into his former position.
Mr A was put in an impossible position which jeopardised his right to a fair trial, authority member Anna Fitzgibbon said.
"The company's continuation of its disciplinary process into Mr A's conduct while the police were conducting an investigation was unjustified in the circumstances and affected his employment to his disadvantage.
"No charges were laid in the almost three month period period leading up to Mr A's summary dismissal on June 12.
"As it happened no charges were [ever] laid by the police," Ms Fitzgibbon said.