Nelisi v The Niue Public Service Commission [2004] NUHC 2 (4 April 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NIUE
NELISI
V
THE NIUE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

High Court
4 April 2004
Smith CJ

Public Service Commission’s right to terminate employment –– Complaints of absenteeism and poor teaching –– Regulation 61 of the Niue Public Service Regulations 1979 –– Whether transfer being made for disciplinary reasons –– Regulation 45 of the Public Service Regulations –– Transfer as an exercise of Commission’s authority

The applicant, a public servant, attended a meeting to hear charges against him, which were dismissed due to lack of evidence. However, the Public Service Commission exercised its authority under regulation 45 of the Public Service Regulations 1979 to transfer the applicant out of his position.

The applicant applied to the High Court to review the decision of the Commission to transfer him against his will to another position.

Held 1 Administrative transfer under regulation 45 cannot to be used as a disciplinary measure (see paras [10], [11]).

2 Administrative transfer under regulation 45 requires the consent of the employee (see paras [13]-[14]).

Application allowed

Cases referred to: Talagi v The PSC (High Court 28th October 1997), and
Poananga v State Service Commission [1985] 2 NZLR 885 followed.

Application

This was an application for the Court to review the decision of the Public Service Commission regarding the transfer of a public servant to another position in the public service against his will.

SMITH CJ [1] This is an application by Manoa Nelisi, the applicant, to review the decision of the Public Service Commission to terminate the applicant’s employment as Head of Department in the Material & Design Technology and Graphics at Niue High School and transfer him against his will to another position.

[2] The applicant has been employed at the school since 1980 and has held the current position for some time. Early in 2003, the Director of Education held a meeting with the applicant to apprise him of the complaints of absenteeism and poor teaching methods at the school which had been laid against him. The Director laid out what would be required from the applicant during the rest of 2003, and warned that if there was no improvement than he may have to be replaced.

[3] From time to time following that meeting further complaints were received and letters sent to the applicant.

[4] Finally the applicant and his advisor were invited to attend a meeting of the Public Service Commission and the Education Department to hear and consider charges laid against the applicant in respect to purported offences under regulation 61 of the Niue Public Service Regulations 1979.

[5] At the end of that hearing, the Commission met by itself and reached the following conclusion:

There are no clear evidence to support the allegations that Mr Manoa Nelisi has –

[i] behaved in an improper manner in carrying out his official duties;

[ii] behaved in a manner that has brought or is likely to bring the service into disrepute.

The Commission concluded by saying: 'The case is discharged because of the lack of collaborated [sic] evidence from Education Department.'

[6] On the 23rd January 2004, following the meeting referred to above, the Chair of the Public Service Commission wrote to the applicant informing him that, 'you do not have a case to answer.' She later went on to say 'Therefore the disciplinary matter against you is closed.'

[7] In that same letter the Chair stated that the Commission had noted that, 'there are some ill feelings and animosity existing between key staff members in this particular area of the Education Department. Hence the Commission cannot ignore this critical problem especially in the interests of students of Niue High School.' The Commission therefore resolved to exercise its authority under regulation 45 of the Public Service Regulations and transfer the applicant out of his position of Head of Department at the school. Regulation 45 states:

45 TRANSFERS- The Commission may direct any employee to transfer from one department to another department and the employee so directed shall transfer accordingly and shall perform any duties assigned to him in that department.

[8] The question is however whether of not his present transfer is being made for disciplinary reasons.

[9] Although the Chair in the letter dated the 23rd January 2004 stated that the disciplinary matter against the applicant was closed, the affidavits filed in support of the answer from the Commission to the applicant’s claim refer to those instances cited as offences at the January hearing but dismissed there.

[10] This Court has had the opportunity of reading the decision of Dillon J on the 28th October 1997 in the matter of Maru Talagi v The PSC. In that decision Dillon J referred to a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Poananga v State Services Commission [1985] 2 NZLR 385. In that case the State Services Commission transferred the applicant into another department because of the belief that the notice circulated by her was inflammatory and constituted an offence. The Court held that the question to be decided was:

Can an officer be transferred purely administratively contrary to the will of the officer when the real reason for the action is that he or she has been guilty of conduct constituting in substance a disciplinary offence?

[11] Dillon J in discussing that case recorded that the Court of Appeal found that the transfer was illegal. Dillon J went on to say that the New Zealand State Services Act 1962 included provisions for the laying of charges for offences similar to the provisions in regulation 61 of the Niue Regulations.

[12] Although in the case of Poananga there was no challenge against the State Services Commission finding that an offence had been committed, it is pertinent that even under those circumstances a transfer against the wishes of an officer is illegal.

[13] It follows therefore that where the Niue Public Service admits that there is no case for the applicant to answer, a transfer against the wishes of an officer is even more odious.

[14] It is the finding of this Court that the transfer of the applicant from his position as Head of Department at the Niue High School is invalid and demonstrates an exercise of powers outside the authority of the Public Service Commission.

[15] The relief sought by the applicant is his restoration to his position as Head of Department.

[16] Insofar as this Court has found the transfer to be invalid, the status quo existing prior to be meeting on the 23rd January 2004 stands.

[17] The question of costs is reserved.

Application granted

Reported by: Nicola Scott