This morning’s Herald reports the views of several employment law experts that TVNZ has sufficient grounds to sack Veitch. This has been my view as well, although my expertise in employment law is undoubtedly less extensive.
It is true that TVNZ would have to give Veitch an opportunity to explain himself, and would need to investigate any matters that Veitch raised. That’s called “natural justice”, and we would all be poorer if we didn’t follow these principles in our legal and employment dealings. The idea that TVNZ would have to “[consider] alternative posts” is a new one for me, and I’m inclined to disregard that.
It is clear that Veitch assaulted a woman 2 1/2 years ago — his sole public statement was carefully worded, but that much has been admitted — and then attempted to buy her silence. I haven’t seen even the threat of a writ against Fairfax Media, have you?
If he did not tell TVNZ about this, then given his high public profile, TVNZ cannot be expected to trust him in the future. Trust is recognised as being at the heart of the employment relationship, and employers are not expected to continue employing people they can’t trust.
Of course if TVNZ did know of the alleged domestic violence by Veitch some time before the allegations were published on Monday, then it is a different matter. TVNZ would be — rightly in my view — seen as accepting his behaviour. In essence, saying “that’s okay, Tony, this sort of thing doesn’t bother us.” I have little sympathy for TVNZ management if this is the case.
So, if they knew about his actions, and/or if they didn’t include a clause in his contract providing for this sort of situation, then TVNZ deserve to be stuck for compensation by Veitch in the event they dismiss him. What do they think they’ve been drawing their fat salaries for?
