Anthony Lockington was employed by Health NZ as service manager in specialist mental health services.
A senior mental health nurse with decades of experience lost his job after excluding, undermining and humiliating a colleague.
Anthony Lockington was employed by Health New Zealand as a registered nurse in Canterbury’s specialist mental health services.
He was a service manager when a consultant began working with him at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch in early 2023. Both employees were part of a leadership team.
According to a recently released Employment Relations Authority determination, the consultant had concerns about Lockington’s behaviour, including specific actions which they addressed directly with him on occasions.
The colleague reportedly received unsatisfactory responses – with Lockington allegedly stating on one occasion that his behaviour was just who he was.
Health NZ brought in an independent employment specialist, advising Lockington of the complaint and pending investigation process, according to the determination.
He was suspended on pay pending the investigation and after reviewing the matter, Health NZ commenced a disciplinary process.
Health NZ decided that because Lockington had committed acts of serious misconduct and it had lost trust and confidence in him to exercise sound judgment and not repeat the same behaviour, summary dismissal was the appropriate sanction.
Health NZ concluded Lockington had not only excluded, undermined and humiliated the consultant over a period of time, but had also caused that person psychological harm.
He also failed to declare a conflict of interest during a recruitment process, was rude and aggressive to another colleague, engaged in unprofessional and offensive behaviour through various comments about colleagues and aspects of Health NZ work and breached confidentiality in connection with the disciplinary process.
Health NZ decided the behaviour amounted to serious misconduct and fired him at the end of July.
Lockington claimed his dismissal was unjustified, saying he had no opportunity to change the outcome through the process, the investigation was flawed, and that Health NZ relied on historical matters that had been resolved without any disciplinary consequences for him.
He said Health NZ did not give him enough credit for his 37 years of employment and service to Health NZ (and the Canterbury District Health Board).
He wanted his job back.
Lockington said the process undertaken by Health NZ in coming to the decision to dismiss him was not justified; he pointed to the delay in bringing the complaint to his attention and subsequent delays in the investigation and disciplinary process.
Employment Relations Authority member Peter van Keulen said Health NZ took considerable time over the allegations and conclusions it put to Lockington, especially in terms of ensuring he had an opportunity to respond, particularly as new matters developed in the process.
In declining his application for interim reinstatement, he said Lockington had “weak claims” for unjustified dismissal and permanent reinstatement.
The possible effect of an order for interim reinstatement on Health NZ meant the balance of convenience weighed against granting interim reinstatement.
Health NZ also found a new matter came to light during the disciplinary process, which also amounted to serious misconduct.
Van Keulen said it was important to record that there was no dispute Lockington was “an extremely able and experienced registered nurse”.
“There is an enormous amount of work he has undertaken over the many years successfully and without issue – he has been recognised as achieving results in the specialist mental health service and from one perspective is a valued and well-liked employee.
“However, the contrasting position is that with all this experience Mr Lockington knows what is expected of behaviour in the workplace, but he lacks the objectivity and self-awareness to meet those standards.”
From a Health NZ perspective, van Keulen said it was believed the potential impact of Lockington causing harm to another employee if he was reinstated could not be mitigated.
An independent specialist employment lawyer had investigated and found that Lockington had behaved in a way that caused psychological harm to the complainant.
Lockington did not acknowledge the extent of the behaviour and therefore could continue to behave that way with other employees.
Health NZ had limited means to protect employees from the behaviour if Lockington would not change and if he was to work with others, including employees who had expressed concern about his behaviour.
A Health NZ spokesperson said they were unable to comment on matters relating to current or former employees.
NZME reached out to Lockington for comment but did not receive a reply.
Al Williams is an Open Justice reporter for the New Zealand Herald, based in Christchurch. He has worked in daily and community titles in New Zealand and overseas for the last 16 years. Most recently he was editor of the Hauraki-Coromandel Post, based in Whangamatā. He was previously deputy editor of the Cook Islands News.