KEY POINTS:
Tony Veitch's days before the TVNZ cameras appear numbered. Employment law experts are confident the state-owned broadcasting company has sufficient grounds to sack him from his sports frontman roles.
But the network first has to follow a potentially drawn-out employment law process, which includes holding disciplinary proceedings, investigating
his submissions and considering alternative posts, rather than instant dismissal.
TVNZ yesterday dumped Veitch from his presenting role at the Beijing Olympics.
The police investigation into the domestic violence allegations against him could delay any decision on his future at TVNZ and the Radio Network, where he also works.
The organisations may opt to await the outcome of the inquiry before acting further, which could help Veitch as public interest wanes.
And either broadcaster could have its hands tied if it emerges that it knew of the alleged domestic violence by Veitch 2 1/2 years ago but failed to take disciplinary action before the claims were published on Monday.
Rumours of the incident are said to have circulated for more than a year.
But TVNZ has denied prior knowledge of the accusations, and the Radio Network will not comment.
On Wednesday, Veitch said he "lashed out in anger" after a long argument with former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell at their St Heliers home and would regret the incident for the rest of his life.
He was responding to allegations in the Dominion Post that Ms Dunne-Powell was hospitalised, confined to a wheelchair and suffered a nervous breakdown after an assault early in 2006. The couple then negotiated a $170,000 confidentiality agreement.
Veitch's admissions prompted calls for him to be sacked - but employment law experts say a hasty response could backfire badly in an unfair dismissal case.
Employment lawyers say his contract with TVNZ would include a clause about bringing the organisation into disrepute as well as obligations not to jeopardise public trust and confidence in the organisation.
Given his high profile and the public concern about domestic violence, most consider the broadcaster would be on safe grounds to axe him - at least from front-of-camera roles.
The experts stress that New Zealand's labour laws lean towards avoiding dismissal where possible - but whether Veitch took up a different role would depend on his skills and willingness to do so. The same could apply to his radio show, although some believe he could argue that that role is less visible and has fewer role-model associations.
The alleged payment of "hush money" could also be grounds for disciplinary action, if either of Veitch's contracts includes clauses about informing the employer of any incident likely to bring it into disrepute. But such clauses are "less common than you might expect" in firmswith high-profile staff, one expert said.
Rick Hargreaves, a senior associate at DLA Phillips Fox in Auckland, says: "You would expect any action which brings the company into disrepute would be subject to action up to and including dismissal."
TVNZ presenters were heavily promoted and Veitch's profile would count against him.
Associate Professor Bill Hodge of the Auckland University law school says employees have obligations not to harm public trust and confidence in their employer. With media organisations, those obligations are heightened and presenters are most in the spotlight.
Another specialist, Jane Latimer, says dismissal is a last resort under existing employment law.
A LETTER FROM PRISON
The Editor
I am on remand at Mt Eden Prison, not on male against female charges I might add.
There are presently 1000s of men in the system for assaults on their partners. Who wish they too had a High Public Profile and $100,000 to Bribe their partners to Shut up.
If Mr (huh) Veitch's partner was Bashed so violently as to require hospitalisation, requiring a wheelchair for her convalescence, I ask you this?
Were Police involved? If not why? If so why were charges not layed? Has this point been overlooked by the media? Why? is this not mandatory whether the victim wishes to press charges or not? (All of the aformentioned detainees would attest to this).
This raises questions itself. Was there a Cover up?Police, hospitals, media, TVNZ hierarchy etc? Systematic hypocracy laws for them and laws for us? And the golden rule: He who has the gold ($100,000 and high profile it seems) makes the rules.
Shame on you Veitchy!! Man Up!! You too should be in here facing the consequences of your action as there are men here without your resources and profile guilty of way lesser bashings on their partners.
Yours,
Non De Plume - Remand prisoner
007
PS: As daily papers are not always available here I would appreciate confirmation of publication please.
