The University of Otago has been ruled not to have breached a suppression order when it used information from a court case to discipline a Campus Watch security guard.
The guard was discharged without conviction on charges of wilful damage and assaulting a female, and had their name suppressed in the 2013 case, but a university staff member who attended court passed it on to managers.
The issue began when the security guard, who is still employed by the university, pleaded guilty to one charge of wilful damage, and another of assaulting a female.
In the Dunedin District Court, the guard was discharged without conviction, and Judge Dominic Flatley said in sentencing there was a strong likelihood of the guard losing their job.
The judge made an order of "suppression of name and all details in relation to the defendant and this offending''.
But the deputy proctor of the university had been told the guard, known as ASG, was being sentenced, and made notes in court.
After legal advice he could talk person-to-person to an employer with a legitimate interest without breaching suppression, he told university management.
The guard was suspended and given a final written warning.
The matter went to the Employment Relations Authority, which in 2014 ruled ASG had not been disadvantaged unjustifiably by being suspended, but had been by being issued a final written warning.
Neither party was satisfied with the ruling, and both lodged challenges with the Employment Court.
The Employment Court ruled the university had not breached the suppression order when the staff member communicated the suppressed information to the university.
The Court of Appeal granted ASG leave to appeal, but yesterday ruled the Employment Court did not err in its judgement.
Justices Rhys Harrison, John Wild and Stephen Kos said disclosing information to an employer who had a genuine interest was not "publication'' of the information.
The court also urged district court judges to consider the statutory obligations of employers.
When making an order forbidding the publication of a name, time should be taken to ``stipulate clearly what may be published to an employer and between an employer's responsible staff'' to avoid uncertainty.
Otago University director of human resources Kevin Seales said the university was ``delighted'' with the decision.
"It has taken a long time to get to this point, and we think the decision sets a very important precedent for all employers in New Zealand.
"We have a duty to people in our care and we take this very seriously,'' Mr Seales said.
