NZPFU sees same issues with complaints processes still occurring
Four critical reports over 9 years and still FENZ fails to have fair and proper complaint management processes
A new report was quietly added to the FENZ website today without the usual press releases and mass email notifications that previous reviews into complaint processes has enjoyed. It is a damning report of a Public Service Commission inquiry into the handling of complaints made by a volunteer firefighter against volunteer leaders and management.
Attached is the Terms of Reference, and the Final Report reviewed by Simon Mount KC can be accessed here. The Report details an investigation into the handling of the complaints made by the volunteer firefighter since 2016. It is not a report into the subject matter of the complaints.
This is the 4th report since 2016 that has found FENZ has failed to establish clear and fair processes to deal with complaints and issues fairly, proportionately and in a timely manner.
CEO Kerry Gregory has publicly apologised on the FENZ website but it is an empty apology when the organisation continues to fail the complainants and the accused through lack of a fair and robust complaints process.
The NZPFU currently has a series of matters filed in the Employment Relations Authority including a case challenging the complaint process and new code of conduct.
The failure to properly manage complaints and investigations harms the complainant and any accused.
The scathing report lists 33 failings in the handing of the volunteer’s complaint and many of those failings are issues that the NZPFU has been raising about FENZ’s complaint management processes. Many of our members (whether complainant or have subject to allegations) will see many similarities in the mismanagement of their cases in these findings.
Highlighted below are the findings that mirror the types of issues the NZPFU has raised in various complaint processes and disciplinary matters (whether acting for complainants and those responding to allegations over the past 12 months).
Public Service Commission report findings:
During the initial phase of the response the New Zealand Fire Service / Fire and Emergency New Zealand:
1. Did not communicate the applicable process to the complainant when she approached the New
Zealand Fire Service for help to resolve the situation [REDACTED].
2. Did not follow the applicable policy/process (the Respond to bullying policy).
3. Drafted a letter “to confirm” The complainant’s resignation when she had not resigned and FENZ had not checked the position with her.
4. Wrongly insisted it could not act unless the complainant made a formal complaint.
5. Did not adequately manage conflicts of interest.
6. Did not treat the complainant with sensitivity or respect.
7. Did not take any steps to reintegrate the complainant into the brigade.
8. Unreasonably proposed to discharge the complainant from the brigade.
During the interim dispute resolution process phase, Fire and Emergency New Zealand:
9. Did not adequately establish the interim dispute resolution process investigation, including by omitting reference to the relevant
standards and policies.
During the interim dispute resolution process phase, the investigator:
10. Did not properly interpret the period under investigation in the terms of reference.
11. Did not comply with an agreed process to give the complainant an opportunity to comment
on interviews before preparing draft findings.
12. Did not adequately deal with pre-interview contact between interviewees.
13. Did not adequately deal with additional matters that arose during the investigation.
14. Wrongly suggested that corroboration of the complainant’s account was required.
15. Reached conclusions that were unsustainable on the evidence.
Following the interim dispute resolution process, Fire and Emergency New Zealand:
16. Responded to the investigation in a slow and disjointed way.
17. Mishandled the apology to the complainant.
18. Did not properly address the complainant’s ongoing status by engaging with her to
understand what training and other support she required as a volunteer.
In responding to the complaints after the interim dispute resolution process, Fire and Emergency New Zealand:
19. Did not respond to the complainant’s complaints with an appropriate process or structure.
20. Did not provide adequate support for the complainant at key points in the process.
21. Took an overly rigid approach to defining the scope of the complaints.
22. Made an unreasonable and unilateral decision not to proceed with the external investigation.
23. Did not respond to the complainant’s reasonable questions and correspondence.
24. Failed to ensure that the people handling the complainant’s complaints had the information,
training and support they required.
25. Did not follow applicable policies and processes.
26. Did not follow the process it told the complainant it would follow.
27. Wrongly withheld documents requested under the Privacy Act.
28. Unreasonably delayed the process.
29. Did not adequately manage conflicts of interest.
30. Made a procedurally unfair and unsound decision to close the complainant’s
complaints.
In overall terms, Fire and Emergency New Zealand:
31. Failed to learn from past incidents and external reviews, including the IDRP report and the
Shaw report. This led the organisation to repeat mistakes that had been identified in those reviews and reports.
32. Lost sight of the person at the centre of the complaints. This led FENZ to take an approach often characterised by narrow, defensive
thinking that saw the complainant primarily as an organisational risk to be managed.
33. Did not meet the standards of sound complaints handling.
We acknowledge the strength and tenacity of the volunteer at the centre of this latest report who has fought for 9 years to have her complaints properly considered and investigated.
The NZPFU will continue to fight for the rights of our members to have complaints managed properly and appropriately, and to have management held to account.
In unity,
National Secretary
Wattie Watson
