Recent court cases involving a police officer, a paramedic and a firefighter who were either found guilty of domestic violence or admitted guilt have highlighted a question many employers struggle to answer: what should happen when the person using family violence is your employee?
While the answer isn’t simple, it is important.
Some roles require high standards of personal conduct because they involve providing safety or care for people or because they have significant power over other people.
In 2024, a firefighter employed by Auckland Airport was convicted of assaulting and strangling his partner. Auckland Airport stated that it has “zero tolerance for violence or abuse of any kind” and that employees are held to the highest standards of conduct given their role in public safety.
Similarly, a paramedic convicted of serious violence against his partner faced professional misconduct charges. The Paramedic Council emphasised that paramedics work in environments requiring a high degree of public trust, where patients are often vulnerable and have little choice about who provides their care.
These responses recognise that using family violence raises legitimate concerns about a person’s suitability for a safety-sensitive role.
By contrast, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) criticised Police for not pursuing disciplinary action against an officer who had completed diversion after charges relating to the kidnapping, assault, and threatening of his former wife, noting that the officer had acknowledged his offending during the diversion process.
When there is evidence that employees in safety-sensitive roles have used family violence, including admitting the behaviour, employers should carefully consider:
- how they can prevent further harm
- whether the employee remains fit for the role
- whether public trust can be maintained.
More generally, employers should respond when employees perpetrate family violence, regardless of the employee’s occupation, when the behaviour is work-related, ie, family violence that:
- uses work time
- uses work resources such as phones, laptops, or vehicles
- is perpetrated in the workplace or using work-related authority.
Examples are an employee using a work car to stalk an ex-partner, harassing a partner with calls and texts during work, or accessing customer records to locate an ex-partner.
Such behaviour is an inappropriate use of work time, resources and authority, which may justify disciplinary action. It is also often criminal behaviour, in which case employers should also consider reporting to the Police.
When employers learn about an employee’s use of family violence from the person being targeted, they should carefully consider how their actions—or inaction—could affect that person’s safety. Doing nothing can unintentionally enable ongoing abuse.
Family violence behaviours not only harm the victim but also create risk for co-workers and can impact productivity. In research involving employees self-reporting using domestic violence, many reported difficulties concentrating, reduced productivity, lateness, workplace accidents or near misses, and colleagues covering for their behaviour.
It’s also important for employers to communicate that it’s OK to ask for help, by providing information about specialist non-violence programmes and support for employees to access them. Consequences can create motivation for change, while access to support increases the likelihood that change will occur.
While workplace action alone will not end family violence, it can reduce harm, strengthen safety, and reinforce the message that abuse is unacceptable.
Clear policies, consistent messaging, and a commitment to addressing work-related family violence can help create a workplace culture that discourages abusive behaviour and supports accountability.
Shine’s free DVFREE Guidelines for a Workplace Response to Domestic/Family Violence at www.dvfree.org.nz provide further guidance.
By Holly Carrington, DVFREE Senior Advisor & Trainer