Violence, the C-word, sexism: Poor workplace behaviour laid bare in ERA cases

Wednesday, 31 December 2025

The Employment Relations Authority exists to sort out employment disputes, and can investigate complaints for things like unjustified dismissal.

The idea of bringing “your whole self to work” was a progressive 2010’s clarion cry for allowing people to be “authentic” and diverse in the workplace.

But decisions from the Employment Relations Authority in 2025 show there are some aspects of self that legally have to be left at home.

They include aggression, a short temper, sexism, a tendency to deploying industrial language, and bullying behaviours.

Threat of violence

One 2025 case involved a worker at a flooring company who regularly didn’t turn up at work, never managing more than three or four days a week for the whole of 2025, often only sending texts to say he wouldn’t be coming in.

One day he arrived at work and was told by another co-worker that his manager had asked if the worker’s wife could provide some childcare so he could attend work.

The worker was upset by this. He threw his tool crate onto the ground, and began shouting and swearing at his manager, and continued doing so for some time. The manager yelled back, but then retreated to his office, and tried to close the door. The worker followed, blocked the door, and continued to yell. The manager feared he would be assaulted.

In May, ACT MP Brooke van Velden became the first person to use the C-word in Parliament.

The worker later apologised, and accepted he had done wrong, but felt his wife had been insulted. He was also under financial stress, and there had been illness in his family.

The worker admitted he had trouble managing his temper, and he had been warned about an earlier tantrum in which had kicked the door of a truck, and knocked over tins of sealant, because he was unhappy with where a work truck was parked.

ERA member Claire English said the worker’s dismissal was justified, and it was an entirely reasonable expectation by an employer that a worker would not shout at or abuse his manager in the workplace.

The C-word and other profanity

2025 saw the elevation of the C-word to the level of national debate, after it was used in a column in reference to the Government’s decision to abolish ongoing pay equity claims, and in response, Minister of Internal Affairs and for Workplace Relations and Safety Brooke van Velden became the first person to use the C-word in Parliament.

While swearing, especially at an industrial level directed at employers, is not widely considered professional behaviour, and can be a firing offence, tolerance from employers can mean using it is not a firing offence.

In one particularly awful collapse of employee-employer relations on a New Plymouth farm, the question of swearing was tackled in a case heard in 2025.

The case saw the employees substantially win with the farm-owning company being ordered to pay the two employees just over $67,000 in unpaid wages and compensation over their unjustified dismissals.

Such was the frustration of one of the workers that during a conversation she made a comment to the effect of “you know how you told Paul that one of your previous employees had told you that you were a c..t to work for, I am beginning to think they were right”.

The employee said that followed an incident where her employer had sworn and yelled at the other employee.

“The comments made could be viewed as being insubordinate,” ERA member Rowan Atkinson said. However, the language was not out of character with previous comments made in the workplace, including by the employer, and was therefore “tolerated” in the workplace.

Actual violence

One 2025 case involved a male Salvation Army worker who was fired for a two-handed push on a female colleague, his hands making contact with her chest.

The man also directed a “derogatory slur” at her. He also “critiqued” her height, weight, and hand size.

He was enraged about what he saw as actions that were undermining him at the Salvation Army, and tried to claim the woman had assaulted him.

ERA member Claire English said the man’s dismissal was justified, and said: “Case law demonstrates that physical violence in the workplace is commonly considered to be a form of serious misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal. Abusive language may also justify dismissal.”

Crass, sexist jokes

The topic of jokes that amount to sexual harassment arose in the case of a worker of Asaleo Care, who in a moment of crass stupidity joked to a female colleague who planned to take a short cut through a workshop: “You don’t want to do that, you’ll get raped”.

The woman, whose name was suppressed by the ERA, said the comment was the straw that broke the camel’s back for her “because throughout the year there has been multiple incidents and comments made to me, towards me, and about me with sexual overtones, disrespectful and derogatory in nature, which in the moment I have felt and dealt with by laughing it off, pretending I didn’t hear it or just accepting it is just the way it is, and over time has just worn me down mentally and emotionally.”

The company dismissed the worker who made the joke despite his long service with the company, exemplary record, and genuine remorse.

ERA member Rowan Anderson determined that the worker’s comment had amounted to sexual harassment, but ordered the company to reinstate the man, saying the company had taken no action against other workers who had made comments to the female employee, and that it had given inadequate consideration of the full circumstances of the conduct, the gravity of the worker’s actions, and of the isolated nature of them.

“The joke was not humorous, and it was made in circumstances where there was a power imbalance. It was entirely unacceptable. However, that does not mean that reinstatement is not practicable or reasonable,” Anderson said.

Bullying

Research suggests there is a national epidemic of workplace bullying. A survey by Kantar Public found 20% of workers had experienced what they saw as bullying behaviour frequently in the previous 12 months.

But one case that came before the ERA in 2025 indicated people seen as bullies by their colleagues and the people they have power over, may not always appreciate the toxic effect their behaviour has on others.

It involved an Oranga Tamariki who routinely referred to social workers as “f…ers”, commented on colleagues’ weight, called a colleague a “sookie baby” for crying, and was eventually demoted after colleagues complained.

Oranga Tamariki had thought about firing the worker, who expressed remorse for their actions, and said they had been unaware some of their behaviour was perceived as bullying, and had intended it as humour.