��һ�ǿ�����

A youth worker who was initially awarded nearly $30,000 for unfair dismissal after pushing a teenager who called her a derogatory name has now lost her case on appeal.

The Employment Court has ruled that her dismissal was justified, determining she used excessive force and should receive no compensation as a result.

Ioana Hill worked at the  youth residence, , in South Auckland between 2017 and 2021.

In March 2021, Hill was in the  alongside four male staff members and six male rangatahi.

A disagreement occurred between Hill and one of the teenagers over a missing pen and the boy was told to sit at the non-participation table (NPT).

According to a recently released decision, he muttered, “F s***” as he walked towards the table, which caused Hill to feel embarrassed, humiliated and degraded in a room full of boys.

She approached the teen who continued to aggressively repeat, “You f s***, you’re a s***, you’re a s***”.

Fearing for her safety, she used a technique called the train stop and pushed the boy backwards. He fell on to a chair.

The boy went to get up again and Hill performed a second train stop but reported her hands missed his chest and moved towards his collarbone, pushing him back further than she anticipated.

Hill left the unit upset, reported the incident to a team leader and admitted she had “f up”.

Oranga Tamariki conducted a review and dismissed her after they alleged she had her hand around his neck. This allegation however, was not proven.

The letter informing her of dismissal for serious misconduct said she had initiated the altercation when there had been no lawful ground to use force.

The ERA v The Employment Court

Hill took her dismissal to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) in 2024. It found she was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded her $29,000.

Oranga Tamariki appealed the ERA decision recently, taking Hill to the Employment Court.

Much of the ERA decision found Hill’s actions were warranted as she was acting in self-defence, but Judge Merepaia King disagreed.

“The purpose of a youth justice residence is to provide a safe environment and high standard of personalised care for rangatahi in Oranga Tamariki’s care,” she said.

“Oranga Tamariki care for some of the most complex and challenging rangatahi in New Zealand. These rangatahi come from backgrounds of criminal offending, mental health or addiction issues and physical, sexual and emotional trauma.

“There is an inherent power imbalance between staff and rangatahi. This is due to the legitimate and authorised power and control that Oranga Tamariki employees have over rangatahi in the youth justice residence.”

Although King acknowledged Hill was acting in self-defence, she said the teen did not pose any threat to Hill’s safety, the safety of others or to property.

“He was making offensive comments, but nevertheless he was complying with her instruction to go to the NPT in the corner of the room.”

Judge King ruled Hill used excessive force and the ERA erred in finding that Hill was unjustifiably dismissed.

Despite this finding, Judge King found Oranga Tamariki conducted an inadequate investigation and criticised flaws in procedures, including an immediate dismissal.

“Oranga Tamariki ought to have conducted a more thorough investigation before it rejected her position that she had feared for her safety at the time of the incident.”

Standing up for what is right

Hill told ��һ�ǿ����� the four-year legal battle was about standing up for what was right.

“I was invited more than once to consider an early resolution but chose to see the case through. I maintained my position throughout, and, despite the appeal, I’d rather bear the cost of pursuing justice than walk away quietly,” Hill said.

Iain Chapman, DCE for Oranga Tamariki youth justice services and residential care, told ��һ�ǿ����� that the safety of children sits at the core of its work and he welcomed the court’s decision on this matter.

“Our focus in the appeal was to ensure that the court accurately applied our regulations to this employment matter,” Chapman said.

“The regulations are intended to ensure force is only used in limited and appropriate circumstances.”

The previous order to pay $15,643.86 in lost wages and $14,000 in compensation has been set aside.

Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined ��һ�ǿ����� in 2023.