Court officer gets $6500 porn payout

A court officer who kept porn on his work computer has had a written warning overturned and been awarded $6500 by the Employment Relations Authority. The South Island court registry officer, who has name suppression, received multiple emails containing unsolicited objectionable material from three people - his partner, a good friend and a solicitor. He was investigated after an audit revealed one email, with the subject line Waterworld and an offensively-titled video attachment, stayed in his inbox for 15 days. Bosses at the Ministry of Justice were unable to prove whether he viewed the video, which was sent by the solicitor, but concluded he knew its content was \"at the very least, inappropriate\", the authority said. The ministry accepted he had not solicited any of the emails but were upset he forwarded six with images attached to other people. Retaining and forwarding the emails was a breach of the ministry\'s computer, email, intranet and internet policy. Possessing the material in the workplace was deemed inappropriate, obscene, objectionable or likely to offend.The incident was deemed serious misconduct by the man\'s regional manager but the authority ruled the employee, known only as X, had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by receiving a first written warning. In an earlier ruling, the authority said the ministry breached the terms and conditions of his employment and its good faith obligations towards him and ordered that the warning be wiped from his file. They said the employer twice breached policy by failing to hold meetings with the man about its investigation. Now member Helen Doyle has ordered the ministry to pay an \"appropriate award\" of $6500 in costs for the case, which she described as being \"clearly a very important one to both parties\". But the authority found there was \"blameworthy conduct\" on the man\'s part because he kept the email for two weeks and awarded no compensation. In its decision, the authority said a fair and reasonable employer would not have given the man a first written warning without allowing him the opportunity to explain. In the case of less offensive emails - even if inappropriate for the workplace - an educational caution, firm discussion or first step verbal warning could be more appropriate.