A Christchurch aircraft engineer jailed for the "predatory grooming" for sex of a 14-year-old daughter of a colleague has failed to convince the Employment Relations Authority he was unjustifiably dismissed from his job over the conviction.
Phillip Edward Crooks, 33, was convicted of indecent assault and inducing an
indecent act after the parents of the girl - whom he regarded as his girlfriend - became aware of the relationship and contacted police.
The relationship began as a friendship and became sexual, but never went as far as intercourse.
Crooks admitted the charges in Christchurch District Court in May 2005 but appealed against the 16-month jail sentence, saying it was too harsh.
He lost his appeal and then took his case to the Supreme Court claiming a miscarriage of justice had taken place during his trial. He lost this appeal also.
More recently, he took a case against the Christchurch Engine Centre to the Employment Relations Authority, claiming he had been unjustifiably dismissed after his 2005 sentencing.
In findings released yesterday, authority member Helen Doyle ruled that the centre, an Air New Zealand-Pratt & Whitney joint venture, was entirely justified in firing Crooks.
He was arrested in December 2003 but the centre took the view that Crooks was innocent until proven guilty and his employment continued during that time.
Staff were told not to harass Crooks and were advised of the consequences of doing so.
"I have not found that any of CEC's actions from January 2004 until sentencing were unjustified actions," Ms Doyle said.
She also found that he had not lost any income during the 17 months between arrest and sentencing, so he was not financially disadvantaged.
The centre was entitled to consider the implications for the business of the length of Crooks' absence from work while serving his sentence, the business' reputation, and the nature of the offences committed, she said.
The company had a right to consider an employee's future if he or she was found guilty of a criminal offence, either at work or off duty.
Ms Doyle left the matter of costs to be resolved between the two parties. If this was not successful, the authority would make a ruling.
- NZPA
