Kamahl Santamaria left TVNZ in May 2022.
Photo: TVNZ / Supplied
Former TVNZ presenter Kamahl Santamaria has been granted his request to move his case to the Employment Court, to achieve a faster resolution of the issue that he says has stopped him being able to work since being “cancelled”.
Santamaria quit Breakfast after 32 days on air amid allegations of inappropriate behaviour.
He took a complaint about his former employer to the Employment Relations Authority.
Authority member Rachel Larmer said both parties alleged the other had breached the settlement signed after Santamaria’s departure, in a number of ways.
The authority last year backed TVNZ in a preliminary decision but further claims were yet to be heard.
Santamaria applied to have the claims removed to the Employment Court. He told the authority the most just, speedy and inexpensive course of action was to do so because his claims would end up there anyway.
TVNZ opposed the move but both parties agreed that if Santamaria succeeded, TVNZ’s counterclaim should also move.
Santamaria said urgency for the case had built over time because he was not able to work or earn an income for an extended period.
Larmer said he described the problem as having arisen because he had been “cancelled”.
But TVNZ said he took more than 18 months to lodge his claim and then lodged two subsequent amended statements of problem.
It said his claims had no bearing on his employment status because he was not prevented from being employed as a journalist or in another role.
Santamaria argued there was large public interest in his case due to media coverage and TVNZ should account to the public for its decisions.
He also said there were questions of law to answer, including those arising from TVNZ’s defence that the editorial independence of its newsroom meant the settlement had not been breached by reporting on the case.
Case likely to head to Employment Court anyway
Larmer said the nature of the case, the entrenched views of the parties and the legal arguments Santamaria had been making meant any determination the authority made was likely to be challenged in the Employment Court.
“While that is normally a neutral factor in removal applications, in this particular case there would need to be a preliminary determination on admissibility and that is a matter that cannot be challenged until after the authority had completed its investigation which would likely not be before 2026,” she said.
“The parties would therefore achieve a more timely and more cost effective final outcome if the Employment Court dealt with this matter in the first instance.”
She said one of the main purposes of the authority conducting its investigation first was to use its flexible powers to provide a “speedy low cost forum” for resolving the problems.
“In terms of Mr Santamaria’s proceedings there has already been one preliminary determination and a further admissibility determination appears inevitable, given how far apart the parties are on disputed document related issues.
“The substantive claims and the counterclaim also cannot be progressed by the Authority until the current challenge has been dealt with by the Court. It would therefore be the most efficient use of the parties’ time and resources for all matters to be before the Employment Court from the outset. Mr Santamaria’s employment ended on 31 May 2022, so there has already been significant delay from the events that are in dispute. The Authority was concerned that the delay associated with retaining these proceedings could undermine the need to facilitate Mr Santamaria’s access to justice.”
She said he was “strongly committed” to having his concerns about the publicity that followed the end of his employment dealt with.
“In his affidavit he stated ‘I became and remain unemployable’. He believes he needed his proceedings resolved ‘as quickly and decisively as possible’ in order for him to be able to return to his field of expertise. In Mr Santamaria’s particular circumstances the fastest and most cost effective way of achieving the finality he sought would be to remove his matter to the Court. The Authority has not commenced its substantive investigation, so removal at this early stage would not mean the parties had incurred unnecessary additional cost.”
