Significant Employment Court decision on tikanga obligations

its own expert evidence or seek to question or cross-examine Mr Mair.22

Ultimately, the Court acknowledged that it must take a cautious approach to cases involving complex tikanga evidence, creating a need for appropriate mechanisms and processes to safeguard tikanga and ensure it is properly considered.23

HOW CAN EMPLOYERS UPHOLD TIKANGA/TIKANGA VALUES IN THE WORKPLACE?

Expert evidence of tikanga in this particular case placed emphasis on the maintenance of relationships from the beginning to end of any process. This included “mana enhancing (not diminishing) conduct.”24

It is important to note that tikanga is highly context dependent and its application depends on the circumstances. In a case such as this, it was said that tikanga would involve (but is not limited to):25 a) face-to-face discussions with the affected employee with a view to reaching consensus; b) ensuring that the right people were present at such discussions, including those who were professionally close to the affected person; c) designing and implementing an individualised process for the affected employee; and d) ensuing minimal damage to the relationship, including post-employment if a continuing employment relationship was not possible.

This is the first case following the Supreme Court decision in Ellis v R,26 which discusses the role of tikanga in New Zealand law, where the Employment Court has clarified how tikanga/tikanga values apply in an employment law context, and how they apply to public service employers subject to the good employer obligations under the PSA.