Workplace anti-bullying campaigner rapped across knuckles for conduct

Embattled anti workplace bullying campaigner Allan Halse is calling it quits with the New Zealand justice system over his long-running battle with a North Island health board. Photo / Supplied

Employment rights advocate Allan Halse says he's exhausted his fight with the New Zealand justice system over his case with a health board and will now take it international.

It follows the latest ruling in the case in which the Employment Court rapped him over the knuckles for his conduct and behaviour during legal tussles with the former Bay of Plenty District Health Board, dating back several years.

Halse told Open Justice he had exhausted all options within the New Zealand legal system with regard to the case and would now seek justice in the international arena.

He told Open Justice he was "internationally recognised as New Zealand's leading anti-workplace bullying advocate/activist" and the court's decision had "effectively condoned workplace bullying".

The Employment Court commented on his conduct in a decision released mid-August to strike out his application for a judicial review of decisions made by the Employment Relations Authority dating back several years.

The court said Halse's bid to challenge those decisions was both an abuse of process and vexatious.

The request to strike out the application was brought by the Bay of Plenty District Health Board, now Te Whatu Ora Bay of Plenty, which Halse has locked horns with over his representation of sacked staff member Ana Shaw.

Shaw was sacked in 2015, and then took legal action against the DHB, helped by Halse.

His behaviour during proceedings led the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) to make a number of directions, which Halse then sought to have reviewed.

The court said his application regarding the directions was "vexatious and an abuse of process", while an application to remove a determination from the ERA to the Employment Court failed because it disclosed "no reasonably arguable cause of action".

Halse said while the proceedings might have vexed the DHB, they were not vexatious.

The outspoken advocate was also an ardent user of social media as a platform for expressing his views, and those of his supporters.

In May 2017 the DHB's lawyer told the ERA Halse had contacted the health board's chief operating officer via a social network platform, rather than through the board's lawyers, with communications containing "veiled threats" toward the DHB.

Criticisms against the DHB were also made on the Facebook page operated by Halse's former company, CultureSafe – now in liquidation. He is now operating under the name Hamilton CultureSafe.

In 2017 the ERA directed Halse not to communicate directly with the DHB.

The Employment Court has struck out a bid by workers' stalwart Allan Halse to have earlier legal decisions reviewed, at the request of the DHB he's been fighting. Photo / NZME

It made a further direction instructing Halse to comply when he once again communicated directly with the DHB and made further comments about the board and staff on Facebook.

Despite these directions from the ERA, the CultureSafe Facebook page continued to publish posts referring to the DHB.

Halse said CultureSafe would not be taking its Facebook posts down, which then triggered the DHB to seek ex-parte orders against him.

The ERA also said matters related to the case involving Ana Shaw, which had been posted on social media, were then to remain confidential.

The authority issued its decision on Shaw's claim in December 2018, but unsurprisingly, the matter did not end there, Judge Kathryn Beck said in her recent Employment Court decision.

The DHB then made an application against CultureSafe NZ Ltd, Halse, and Shaw for penalty, take-down and contempt orders.

In February 2019 the ERA decided to remove the application to the Employment Court, given the complexity of some of the issues.

Halse argued that the ERA did not have jurisdiction to make the directions, or shift the matter to the court.

Judge Beck allowed Halse some leeway on this point. She said while the basis for this submission was not entirely clear, it appeared to rest on the authority's jurisdiction being limited by rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Judge Beck said while the argument was not strong she did however consider it would be premature to strike out Halse's applications on that ground, but ultimately, the authority had a "clear and express power to remove proceedings of its own motion".

Beck said while Halse would say his lack of understanding over the correct way to challenge a decision was because he was not a trained lawyer, he was however an experienced advocate, and it was his responsibility to ensure he understood the appropriate pathway to challenge a decision.

She said that for him to have brought the proceeding in the face of numerous failed claims was vexatious.

"It illustrates an unreasonable and tendentious conduct of litigation and a pattern of behaviour characterised by a refusal to accept adverse decisions."

It was for all these reasons that the court struck out Halse's entire application for judicial review.

Halse told Open Justice he felt the judgement undermined "basic New Zealanders' rights" and set the country back decades in its ability to address workplace bullying.

He said a recent Human Rights Commission report showed the horrific rate of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and racism that occurred daily in New Zealand.

He did not intend to remain silent, and would continue to work to protect bullied workers.