The Employment Court has upheld a complaint that the University of Auckland breached its contractual obligations to protect Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles from abuse and failed to act in good faith when addressing her concerns. Judge Holden ruled that the university was slow in implementing measures to protect Wiles, who had become a target of harassment due to her prominent role in supporting the government’s Covid-19 policies. The court awarded Wiles $20,000 in damages.
During the pandemic, Wiles faced escalating threats, including doxing, with her personal information being shared online. She, along with other academics, repeatedly raised safety concerns with the university, which she claimed did not do enough to safeguard her well-being. In a three-week hearing, the court examined whether Wiles had been unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment and if the university had violated its contractual and statutory obligations.
Wiles initially raised her concerns with the Employment Relations Authority in 2021, citing the university’s inadequate response. The matter was escalated to the Employment Court due to its urgent nature and the legal complexities involved. Judge Holden ruled that the university had a contractual duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, including addressing mental harm caused by workplace hazards.
While the university did take some steps to protect Wiles, such as hiring an external firm to review safety protocols, these actions were deemed insufficient or too slow. Judge Holden found that the university should have acted more swiftly to protect Wiles and her colleagues, calling for expert assistance where needed. The court criticised the university for relying too heavily on Wiles and her colleagues to suggest safety measures, rather than proactively addressing the situation.
The court also found that the university’s suggestion for Wiles to moderate her public commentary on the pandemic to reduce harassment was unreasonable. Instead, the university should have provided a robust strategy to support her public engagement. Judge Holden determined that the university’s failure to adequately protect Wiles amounted to an unjustifiable disadvantage, as Wiles was entitled to expect the university to implement a safety plan and support her in her work.
A key issue in the case was whether the university had breached its statutory duty of good faith. At one point, the university attempted to distinguish between Wiles’ academic duties and her media appearances, attributing some blame for the harassment to her “outside activities”. Professor John Fraser, Wiles’ superior, implied that the public discourse she engaged in on social media was outside the scope of her university role and was partly responsible for the abuse she received. Judge Holden criticised Fraser’s comments, particularly his reference to “Brand Siouxsie” and his suggestion that Wiles’ popularity made her a target for abuse. The judge noted that Fraser’s implied criticism, suggesting that Wiles was not engaging in traditional academic discourse, was misplaced. The correspondence from Fraser and other university staff reflected a shift in the institution’s attitude toward Wiles, which was inconsistent with its obligations as a good employer.
The court found that the university’s handling of Wiles’ concerns, including scrutinising her public activities more closely than other academics, exacerbated her distress rather than alleviating it. Judge Holden determined that the university had breached its express and implied contractual obligations to protect Wiles’ health and safety, as well as its duty to act in good faith. Wiles was awarded compensation for the unjustifiable disadvantage she suffered and general damages for the breach of contract.
Despite these criticisms, the judge acknowledged that the university had made some efforts to comply with its health and safety obligations, though these were reactive and insufficient. The court did not impose a penalty under Section 4A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, as the university’s breach of good faith was not deemed deliberate, serious, or sustained.
The ruling sets an important precedent for employers, particularly those managing public-facing staff. The court’s rejection of the university’s implication that Wiles’ public commentary was outside the scope of her work sends a clear message: if an employee’s public- facing work exposes them to danger, the employer must ensure that health and safety obligations are met. These obligations apply as soon as an employee begins such work.
It is also noteworthy that the case had broader implications for all employers, not just universities, highlighting the importance of fair treatment and appropriate communication with employees. Wiles had been subjected to increased scrutiny and internal investigations, in contrast to other academics in similar situations, and that the “aggressive” letters from her superiors referencing her celebrity status raised flags about the language employers should use when dealing with staff.
Ultimately, this case underscores the importance of employers meeting their obligations to protect and support staff, particularly those in high-profile, public-facing roles. It also highlights the legal risks for employers who fail to act swiftly and effectively when their employees raise concerns about workplace safety and harassment.