Authority member Jeremy Lynch held an interim investigation in which he ruled it that it would be inappropriate for the employee to be reinstated into a role, while he continues to receive treatment for “historical” alcohol issues.
Alcohol issues intensified with disposable income
The employee began working as a paid trainee in the Waikato region in May 2025, when he was 18.
He was required to undertake regular blocks of industry-specific training with an external provider, as well as practical on-the-job learning with the company he worked for, which is also suppressed.
The employee acknowledged that his relationship with alcohol had become increasingly problematic since he turned 18.
He told the authority the issues around alcohol escalated when he commenced his employment, as he had more disposable income and a lot of his personal time was spent socialising while drinking.
Not long after starting his job, he lost his driver’s licence for drink-driving, telling the authority it was a “real wake-up call for me and I was anxious to admit I had an issue and needed help”.
The company offered rehabilitation as part of its Drug and Alcohol policy, so the man sought support from the company.
He said he had a conversation with his supervisor, where he said he was interested in signing up.
However, he told the authority that although the company attempted to find external help for him, he was not given access to a rehab programme through the company.
He made his own enquiries and was eventually able to attend an initial consultation with a public health provider on September 13, 2025, immediately before travelling to Hawke’s Bay for a week-long course as part of his training programme.
Alcohol consumed ‘excessively’ on Hawke’s Bay trip
On the Hawke’s Bay trip, his drinking escalated and he became “significantly intoxicated” and “engaged in inappropriate and disorderly behaviour towards [his] colleagues”, the company owner told the authority.
During the journey to Hawke’s Bay, the company owner said the employee attempted to urinate out the window of the moving sign-written company vehicle, without wearing a seatbelt.
The driver stopped the vehicle to intervene and upon arrival at the accommodation, he remained heavily intoxicated, and required assistance from his colleagues.
During the trip to Hawke’s Bay, the employee continued to consume “alcohol excessively after hours and did not properly engage with course requirements”, the company told the authority.
On the drive home from Hawke’s Bay, he unbuckled himself from the passenger seat while the vehicle was moving and again attempted to urinate out the window.
“The vehicle required professional cleaning as a result of [his] conduct,” the company owner said.
The employee disputed some of the company’s evidence but did admit he became intoxicated and behaved inappropriately.
The employee was dismissed after his conduct in Hawke’s Bay. Photo / 123RF
He said his alcohol consumption was during travel to and from the training course, outside working hours, and during unpaid time.
He was suspended on September 30, 2025.
A disciplinary investigation into his conduct found there was a clear breach of the company’s code of conduct, the vehicle use policy and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.
It also found the man represented a serious failure to act safely, respectfully, and responsibly, which meant the company was unable to maintain trust and confidence in his ability to meet the standards expected.
He was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct by letter dated October 21, 2025.
The company told the authority the employee had largely accepted the finding of serious misconduct.
However, the employee said his dismissal was predetermined and that the company failed to adequately consider rehabilitation, as an alternative to dismissal.
Authority denies reinstatement
In his recently released decision, Lynch said the employee’s claim met the low threshold of an arguable case for personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, which would be investigated by the authority later.
For now, the employee wanted to be reinstated on an interim basis.
The company said if he was reinstated, he would be in a safety-critical environment, notwithstanding the unresolved concerns over judgment and reliability.
It said those concerns gave rise to a risk that could not be adequately managed on an interim basis in a safety-critical environment.
Lynch said the employee was not dismissed because of his alcohol problem – he lost his job after the company found there were serious issues with his behaviour while intoxicated.
The employee had since gone to an alcohol treatment provider.
Lynch said the employee had made “significant steps” in acknowledging and dealing with his alcohol problem and he should be “commended”.
“However, there is no evidence before the authority at this interim stage to suggest that there is no longer any basis for [the company’s] safety-related concerns.
“Rather, the information provided by the treatment provider appears to suggest that [the employee’s] issues with alcohol are not historic issues that are fully resolved, but ones that [the employee] is still working through.”
The employee’s application for interim reinstatement was declined.
However, the employee was entitled to have his substantive claims investigated and determined at a later date.
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.