Media Release on Human Rights Review Tribunal decision

October 9, 2011
Spit Roast Catering Company

Media Release on Human Rights Review Tribunal decision

For immediate release

Graham Peet, director of Spit Roast Catering Company (SRCC), welcomes the decision made by the Human Rights Review Tribunal on September 28 that he acted fully within his legal rights to ask a casual employee to cover her tattoo with a longer sleeved uniform, which was the same as the one originally issued to her.

The Tribunal has correctly ruled the plaintiff “was not a victim of discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination when she was asked to cover her moko” while representing the company at a corporate function.

The Tribunal also states the allegation that what happened was an incident of indirect discrimination “has not been established on the evidence”.

As Mr Peet explained to the Tribunal, he directed his operations manager to ask Mrs Haupini if she would mind wearing a longer-sleeved company uniform to the function in question, instead of a short-sleeved uniform.

This was only a request and not an order, as Mr Peet made plain in his evidence. Mrs Haupini did not object, nor lodge a complaint, with the company at any stage. Two other staff members were already wearing the longer-sleeved uniform.

This case has nothing to do with respect for anyone’s culture, and everything to do with a company wanting to be as professional as possible at all times, especially in a public-facing role.
Mr Peet says: “We knew from day one we had done nothing wrong, and I welcome the news that I have been vindicated. We have been frustrated that Mrs Haupini chose to take her complaint to the Human Rights Commission before advising us she was upset.

“We were staggered the director of Human Rights Proceedings decided to commit a considerable sum of taxpayers’ money to totally fund Mrs Haupini’s case including her demands for a lump sum $10,000 payment for hurt and humiliation.

“We feel the judgment brings a commonsense approach to the reasonable concerns a company has in managing the appearance of its staff when working in a frontline role.”

ends

© Scoop Media