First published on 
The Employment Relations Industry says MPI did not provide key details in their case against a former staff member before firing him.
Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller
Mujahid Khan took a colleague to a friend’s house for lunch during work hours – it was a move that cost him his job.
Now, Khan has taken his employer of 18 years, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), seeking permanent reinstatement.
Khan, a senior quarantine officer, was fired after two complaints were made about his behaviour at work, which MPI said breached its core values and code of conduct.
But ERA authority member Simon Greening said MPI failed to prove how the incidents amounted to serious misconduct when it dismissed Khan, and ordered the ministry to immediately reinstate him on an interim basis.
Lunch break leads to complaint
According to a recently released ERA decision, the first complaint related to Khan taking a colleague to a friend’s house for lunch on 10 June, 2025, during work hours.
The female colleague claimed Khan pressured her to go to his friend’s house for lunch during work hours despite her repeatedly telling him she did not want to go.
She also told the ministry she felt “highly uncomfortable” and “uneasy” multiple times while she and Khan carried out inspections at transitional facilities in West Auckland.
The woman alleged Khan made inappropriate and borderline homophobic comments and pressured her to clear a prohibited item for release to an importer.
Following an investigation, MPI concluded the only aspect of the first complaint that had been established was that Khan had pressured the woman to go to his friend’s house for lunch.
Khan told MPI the woman agreed to go and was comfortable during the visit.
He said that on the way to the friend’s house, she asked if they could stop at a cafe so she could buy her own lunch, which they did, and Khan believed she was agreeable to going to his friend’s house.
MPI concluded Khan had committed serious misconduct and failed to comply with its core values of being trustworthy, respectful and responsive.
It also found he had breached its fleet vehicle policy, which states staff should not use work vehicles for personal use, as his friend’s house was a 20-minute drive from the last work site Khan visited before attending the lunch.
Second complaint also breached ‘core values’
The second complaint was made by a male employee who alleged Khan raised his voice at him on 12 June, 2025.
Khan maintained he did not raise his voice that day and said his colleague was upset and not “his normal self”.
MPI concluded Khan’s behaviour was not consistent with its values and therefore it amounted to serious misconduct.
MPI then terminated Khan’s employment based on the two incidents, taking into account a warning issued on 14 August, 2024, which remained on his record for 12 months.
In the termination letter, MPI stated Khan breached the code of conduct by not behaving in a manner consistent with the values of being trustworthy, respectful and responsive.
However, Greening noted the termination letter did not refer to the categories of serious misconduct described in MPI’s policies or explain Khan’s behaviour in reference to those categories.
“At this interim stage, the evidential basis and category of serious misconduct, as described in MPI’s policies and relied upon by MPI in concluding Mr Khan’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct, remains unclear,” Greening said.
“It remains a live issue, to be addressed at the substantive investigation meeting, as to whether MPI, acting as a fair and reasonable employer, could terminate employment if the behaviour of Mr Khan did not amount to serious misconduct.
“Another relevant factor, as part of this assessment, is whether, according to MPI’s policies, Mr Khan’s behaviour amounted to misconduct, and therefore a warning may have followed.”
MPI argued permanent reinstatement was not possible because of a breakdown in trust and confidence in the working relationship, and because Khan’s skills were role-specific so he could not be redeployed.
“The basis for this loss of trust and confidence in Mr Khan, according to MPI, is his ongoing failure to accept responsibility for what occurred,” the ERA decision stated.
A spokesperson for MPI said it could not comment on the decision.
MPI was ordered to reinstate Khan to the position he held before his dismissal, on an interim basis, within seven working days of the determination.
Greening said a substantive hearing would need to be held at a later date to consider whether Khan should be permanently reinstated.
An MPI spokesperson said the ministry could not comment on the decision.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
Photo: Open Justice