A former University of Otago employee had been compensated for her dismissal but not for a claimed "interference with her privacy'', the Human Rights Review Tribunal has heard.
This submission was made on behalf of the employee, psychiatrist Dr Lisa Turner, by Warren Forster, on Thursday, when the tribunal completed an adjourned hearing into claimed shortcomings in how the university dealt with privacy matters involving her.
Andrew Beck and Mr Forster appeared for Dr Turner.
The tribunal, comprising chairman Rodger Haines QC and members Gillian Goodwin and Deborah Hart, reserved its decision over the privacy claims.
On the hearing's last day, Barry Dorking, for the university, completed outlining the university's overall submissions, and Malcolm Couling, also for the university, explained why professional legal privilege was claimed in respect of some documents sought by Dr Turner.
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) awarded Dr Turner $8717 in June last year, and ruled she had been unfairly dismissed from her part-time professional practice fellow position at the university's department of psychological medicine, in July 2013.
The tribunal hearing is considering claims by Dr Turner that the university withheld information about her in a way that was damaging in several respects, including over her employment interests.
She is also seeking "increased remedies'' of $50,000.
The university has said that relevant matters raised by the plaintiff had already effectively been dealt with in the ERA case.
In a right of reply submission, Mr Forster said that, in fact, employment legislation did not provide remedies for Privacy Act breaches.
And the university's approach in this case was not one that was "envisaged'' by either the Employment Relations Act or Privacy Act.
The university had obligations under both Acts, and the Employment Relations Act was "premised on the duty of good faith'' and the privacy legislation also imposed "a duty of reasonable assistance to help a requester comply with the Act'', or to request information elsewhere.
Both pieces of legislation were directed at "minimising the power imbalance between employer/employee and agency/requester''.
It could not be that either Act "envisaged a situation where the powerful party can 'hop' between the Acts as it suits them'', especially when "the outcome of that ‘hopping' is that the information sought is not provided'', he said.
The university had suggested that Dr Turner had not requested all information held by the university about her, but what was to be provided was to be limited to "information that the university subjectively considers relevant to the employment problem'', Mr Forster said.
The plaintiff said this interpretation was "not supported by the evidence'', he said.
Otago University has rejected criticism it did not have "proper systems in place'' to provide Privacy Act information.
Mr Dorking earlier said the university had fully complied not only with its requirements under the Privacy Act, but also with broader and more demanding requirements under employment relations legislation, to answer an employee's information requests in an "open and communicative'' way.
The university had found it hard to clarify exactly what Dr Turner had been seeking, and said many aspects of the case were "inextricably intertwined'' with the employment dispute, he said.
