Veitch must go

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?


Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Veitch must go”

  1. MacDoctor Says:

    I see in the HOS there is a lengthy interview with Veitch by Paul Holmes. I see the so-called “hush money” was actually a legal transaction for compensation 21 months after the event. I would take this as strong evidence that Dunne-Powell never intended to make the event public, anyway.

    I also find the hearsay story of Veitch fracturing her back by kicking her to be rather dubious. Unless he was wearing steel toecapped shoes or heavy boots at the time, he would have broken his toes. I think it far more likely that he pushed or knocked her over and she landed badly – which is what Veitch is implying with his “lashed out”. It would be good if he came out with exactly what happened and end the endless media speculation.

    It also seems that he was quite up-front with TVNZ – who let the matter slide. Regardless of whether they knew the gory details, they certainly knew enough to decide whether he would be a liability or not. I think he probably has a very good case for compensation – but you are probably more of an expert on that, Pete.

    Hi MacDoc, I agree about the improbability of Veitch breaking anyone’s back in that many places, and the desirability of clarifying what actually happened. Too many people have been jumping to make a complete jaudgement too quickly. Which is why the police need to get onto this quick, and they need to assign more than one person. I might post on the compensation question.

  2. Veitch spin quickens « Jafapete’s Weblog Says:

    […] Veitch’s assault of his former girlfriend more than 2 years ago and its aftermath is here, here and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: