ERA orders Family Court document removal in employee suspension case

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ordered the removal of a Family Court document in submissions related to an ongoing employee suspension case, citing the lack of permission to use its contents.

The removal was sought by DBH, an employee who has been under suspension at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) but is currently seeking interim reinstatement as part of an ongoing dispute.

DBH initially provided the ministry the Family Court document after concerns were raised about them by a third party. It contained information that concerns a "vulnerable person," which the Family Court Act limits the publication of.

According to DBH, neither party were thinking of the law when the Family Court document was handed over to the MSD.

"It is accepted MSD received the information in good faith," the ERA said. "It is also accepted it was obliged to investigate the concerns raised by the third party."

But contents of the Family Court document would later be used in the submissions to the ERA as DBH seeks reinstatement from their role.

MSD's defence

MSD defended that the contents of the Family Court document is "central to its decision to place DBH on special leave and later suspend and potentially dismiss them."

It also argued that a Family Court Act breach cannot be made "because there is no publication," adding that the ERA also has a genuine interest in the information.

The ERA could also make appropriate non-publication orders to protect the interests of the third parties as well as the vulnerable persons in the document, according to the MSD.

Removal orders

But the ERA sided with DBH on the case, ruling that the identified judgment of the Family Court and its contents are "not lawfully before the Authority."

The exceptions set out in the Family Court Act do not apply in the case, according to the ERA.

"Leave has not been granted by the Family Court for the information to be before the Authority," it said in its decision.

The ERA further ordered the parties involved to refile the statement of problem and statement in reply without the information from the Family Court.

"The application is to then be reallocated to another member to investigate and determine the application for interim reinstatement," the ERA said.