A team leader at a waste management site repeatedly allowed a customer to dump its commercial waste for free, accepting instead boxes of beer as payment and costing the company around $111,000.

Tina Houkamau was fired when her employers at Waste Management Ltd (WML) found out, after having reviewed CCTV footage of her accepting alcohol instead of taking payment on behalf of the company.

But Houkamau claimed she’d been unfairly dismissed from her job at the Seaview Refuse Transfer Station in Wellington’s Lower Hutt and took a personal grievance against the company, which was heard by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) earlier this year.

However, the authority dismissed her claim, and she was instead ordered to pay her former employer $4000.

According to the ERA’s determination on the matter, management at WML first believed something was amiss when they heard a team member, under Houkamau’s supervision, was at the site on weekends when not rostered on.

This prompted them to review CCTV footage and found an employee removing scrap metal and taking it off-site, allowing a van to dump rubbish without paying and other employees dumping their personal rubbish.

Tina Houkamau worked at the Seaview Refuse Transfer Station in Lower Hutt. Photo / Google

Further analysis showed a customer vehicle stopping beside Houkamau’s car and unloading boxes into it. Footage from later in the day showed another employee taking beer from the car and loading it into his own vehicle.

WML found, through the footage, that this happened on multiple occasions with the same customer.

It was discovered that the customer had visited the dump on 74 occasions and had not paid to dump its commercial rubbish on 71 of those visits.

The company conservatively estimated that $111,091.54 worth of rubbish had not been paid for.

WML then commenced an investigation, which included interviewing four other employees potentially involved, who all went on to admit to scavenging from the site, vaping on-site and dumping personal waste without paying, all prohibited actions.

The customer paying with beer admitted to WML they’d had an arrangement with Houkamau since 2022.

WML tried to recover the levies the company owed under the Companies Act but only secured $10,000.

WML then sent a letter to Houkamau outlining its allegations and informing her it believed she was in breach of her employment obligations.

Houkamau hired a lawyer, who was provided with the CCTV footage and other supporting evidence.

She denied the allegations and said the CCTV footage failed to establish the validity of what she was accused of.

Houkamau argued there was no evidence of any “off-the-books” deals.

WML advised Houkamau would be dismissed from her employment, to which her lawyer responded by putting the company “on notice” and stated they would raise a personal grievance.

Houkamau was fired and went on to raise her grievance with the ERA.

In the recently released determination, ERA member Davinnia Tan dismissed Houkamau’s grievance and, in part, granted WML’s counterclaim to recover some of the money it had lost.

“The CCTV footage presented a strong case against Ms Houkamau for the allegation that she was responsible, or at least had knowledge of the arrangement with [the customer], to allow free disposal of commercial waste, in exchange for boxes of free alcohol given to her and the team at the site,” Tan said.

“Based on the footage alone, I considered it was more likely than not that Ms Houkamau was aware of [the customer] arriving and depositing alcohol on site in her car, and employees removing alcohol from her car for their personal use/consumption.”

Tan said Houkamau could not credibly refute the CCTV footage and her explanation “lacked substance”.

She had claimed that in the footage where the beer was visible, that she had questioned the employee about it and said he told her a “mate left them” for him to pick up and that as it was “nearing the end of day” that employee was taking the alcohol home without consuming it on the premises.

Tan found WML had conducted a thorough investigation and communicated with Houkamau at every step.

However, while WML was seeking $100,000 from Houkamau, Tan ruled it was unlikely she could repay that amount.

Instead, Houkamau was ordered to pay $4000 to the company, and $2000 to the Crown.

WML said it couldn’t comment on the ruling.

Houkamau has been approached for comment.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.