His former employer told the Herald it was “appalled and deeply concerned” when it learned of the charge.
“At the time the charge came to our attention we had an active disciplinary investigation in progress involving this employee, relating to a separate matter,” a company spokesperson said.
“When we learned of the charge we immediately terminated the individual’s employment.
“Due to the suppression order in place we are not in a position to discuss specific details.”
According to court documents, the executive presented himself as a “sugar daddy” and bought a 14-year-old girl Uber Eats and a $200 gift card in exchange for intimate images and videos (including some in a school uniform) before paying her $1000 cash for sexual services in September.
The girl had told the man she was 17 and, according to the court’s summary of facts, he said to her “You’re 17, I can’t pay you for sex so, if anyone finds out, we wanted to have sex, and I just gave you money.”
Months before the man’s guilty plea, he hosted a mid-winter Christmas party at his Auckland home. Invites for the June event were sent to staff on work emails.
One of the partygoers, Chloe*, said she became concerned when a female colleague wasn’t at work in the days after they attended the party together.
It later emerged Chloe’s colleague resigned from the company and would be on leave during her notice period. The colleague declined to comment to the Herald.
Chloe said she was confused why her friend suddenly left and arranged to meet her for a drink.
“It wasn’t good and she didn’t want to talk about it but told me something had happened at the party and that’s why she left,” Chloe said.
The company didn’t answer questions about the party, the woman’s resignation or whether they were related to the separate disciplinary investigation into the former executive.
Multiple staff members claimed they had previously expressed concerns about some of the former executive’s behaviour. They spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Two senior staff members said they approached HR about what they felt were vulgar sexual remarks they alleged he made at work.
One of them, Julia*, who no longer works for the business, told the Herald she wrote to the company chair last month and asked for an independent investigation into workplace conduct.
“The language used by [the executive] in front of his colleagues and employees was inappropriate and unprofessional,” Julia said in the anonymous letter.
The letter claimed the executive’s remarks contributed to “an environment that felt demeaning and unsafe” and that his recent exit from the business was “a relief”.
The company chair declined to comment at this time.
A former staff member of the executive, Polly*, claimed he had a “soft spot” for her, which she felt was obsessive and weird.
“In meetings he used overt sexualised language and swear words … appalling behaviour had been going on for a long time. It wasn’t normal but became accepted. He would make comments like, ‘I’m off to HR again — wonder what they’ll try and do to me?’ It became a running joke. He mocked the process,” claimed Polly, who is decades the executive’s junior.
She said that in an open-plan office he had shared a story about a dress-up party at his house where he described a 15-year-old in a “slutty” costume. He also told a joke about a teenage boy’s erection, she said.
“I don’t believe the word ‘slutty’ and 15-year-old belong in the same sentence,” she told the Herald.
Polly felt over time her boss became “overfamiliar” and she resigned. At her farewell drinks, she claimed he told staff he would date her if he was younger.
“I always felt that if I’d said anything against him at work, it would come back to hurt me.”
Julia, the woman who wrote to the board this month, claimed she spoke to HR about what she described as “lewd comments” in the first few weeks of the man’s employment.
The man pleaded guilty in the Auckland District Court last month. Photo / Nick Reed
She said she felt uncomfortable when she met her new superior at a team morning tea.
“The [executive] talked about [a rival firm] ‘raping the industry’ and told the sales team they should be ashamed of themselves ‘for being caught with their knickers down, bending over and taking it’.
“The CEO was there … and he said nothing. I thought, ‘I am too old for this shit … I can’t condone this conduct and turn a blind eye to it,” Julia said.
The CEO of the company declined to comment.
Another staff member said he was so concerned about remarks female colleagues told him the executive had made he verbally complained to HR. He described what was relayed to him as “disgraceful” but said he was not informed what action, if any, resulted from his complaint.
A spokesperson for the company said it was “committed to maintaining a safe workplace for all employees and we have robust processes in place to ensure that any complaint is thoroughly and comprehensively investigated”.
“We regularly communicate with staff about how they can report inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and we have options to do so internally through our HR team or through an external, anonymous reporting line.”
According to Julia and two others, the former executive compared the economy to the genitalia of a nun at a senior leadership meeting about cost-cutting. Julia said she complained to HR.
About a week later, the former executive apologised to the leaders in his business unit, three staff members told the Herald.
“He said HR had informed the CEO about his behaviour and that he’d received a dressing-down. He told us that if we had any issues with him, we should go to him directly — not to HR. After that, I lost faith in HR and became fearful of losing my job if I raised concerns,” one of them said.
Julia said another colleague confided in her that when she was heavily pregnant, the executive asked her, “Do you get horny when you’re pregnant?”
That woman corroborated Julia’s account but didn’t want to elaborate further.
Julia said she had warned younger staff members about the man to ‘be careful” and “not to be alone” with the executive.
Another former colleague at the business described the executive’s manner as “sleazy”.
“He didn’t hit on me — I wasn’t a young, blonde pretty thing — and that suited me fine. [He] makes my skin crawl.
“What upsets me is seeing a man in power [speak about] women in such a degrading way”.
Another ex-employee at the business said the man would fuss over his “admin girls”.
“He bought them cocktails but not for us ‘old girls.’ At client functions he [bought] the young girls alcohol and often partied with them until the early hours of the morning.”
She alleged she observed the man making sexualised comments to female staff about needing to “bend over and take a spanking” by rival firms.
He said HR had informed the CEO about his behaviour and that he’d received a dressing-down. He told us that if we had any issues with him, we should go to him directly — not to HR.
She believed because the former executive’s business unit was seen as important to the company, it may have turned a blind eye.
But Chloe, who was among those attending the June party, defended her former boss as a “father figure and mentor to her”.
“He was very protective of me, but not in a weird way.”
“I know he was talking to women on a dating app. He was lonely and struggling,” she said.
On one occasion, she said the executive had encouraged her to make a formal complaint after she was groped at a function.
“He was disappointed in me for not reporting it,” she said.
Julia believed the company’s CEO must have been aware of the executive’s use of language from the very beginning, given that he was at the man’s morning tea after he joined the business.
She questioned the CEO’s “moral leadership”.
“What background checks were done?” she asked about the hiring of the former executive.
She believed “heads need to roll”.
One senior staff member, who has since left the business, said he spoke to the CEO when the executive was appointed to say he didn’t believe the man was the right fit for the role because of his credentials and experience.
Another claimed he told the CEO he didn’t believe the man was an appropriate choice because of his reputation.
“The signs were clear — he wasn’t suitable. There were questions about his character, his leadership, and competence.”
“That was the failure of the business: not seeing it. If it was obvious to the people under him that there were issues, I find it very difficult to believe these issues were not apparent to the people above him,” the staff member said.
* Sources’ names have been changed to protect their anonymity.
Carolyne Meng-Yee is an Auckland-based investigative journalist who won Best Documentary at the Voyager Media Awards. Recently, she was runner-up for Best Editorial Campaign and part of a team that won Best Coverage of a Major News Event: Philip Polkinghorne Murder Trial. Prior to the Herald, she worked as an award-winning current affairs producer at TVNZ’s 60 Minutes, 20/20 and Sunday.