Paint worker unfairly fired after weeks of sexual harassment - but he won't get a payout

Keith Gorrett was fired on the spot for sexually harassing a female colleague. 

Across six weeks, the Wynn Fraser Paints sales assistant asked the woman to send him a photo of her breasts, talked with her about erectile dysfunction, touched her bottom and tried to kiss her. 

When the woman went to her boss after Gorrett sent her a letter describing a sexual act he wanted to perform on her, Gorrett was immediately dismissed, walked to his car and trespassed from the workplace. 

Gorrett then took his case to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), claiming unjustifiable dismissal. 

In a recently released decision by the ERA, authority member Simon Greening found that proper disciplinary action was not undertaken and ultimately, Gorrett was right in his claim - he was unjustifiably dismissed. 

But despite his success, the $12,000 compensation Gorrett would have been awarded in normal circumstances was reduced to nothing because of the nature of his conduct. 

Greening described it as “a rare case”. 

“Awarding any remedy to Mr Gorrett would not be consistent with the authority’s statutory obligation to act as it thinks fit in equity and good conscience,” Greening wrote. 

Six weeks of sexual harassment 

According to the decision, Gorrett was employed by Whangārei’s Wynn Fraser Paints from October 7, 2024 until his dismissal on February 26, 2025. 

That day, branch manager Kim Metcalfe received a text from a female staff member, requesting a meeting as soon as she arrived at work. 

The woman, whose name has been suppressed, had received a letter from Gorrett, in his mid-70s, the day before. 

According to the ERA findings, he had been sexually harassing the woman for six weeks, and after receiving the letter, she decided to turn to her employer. 

The letter, which was heavily redacted in the decision, said “you don’t come and hang out at the front counter anymore and I can’t imagine we would ever swap scents anymore, much less show me what bra you are wearing”. 

“I have found myself in a position now when we do talk my heart races and that odd time we touch makes the hair on my arms raise up. 

“I have become a creep, and I hate myself for it.” 

Gorrett said in the letter that he showed the woman his genitals. 

He used words of a sexual nature and described a sexual act he wanted to perform on her. 

She told the ERA that the behaviour was unwanted and had a detrimental effect on her. 

Business director, Allan Gray, was given the letter by the woman and she showed him her mobile phone, which contained text messages from Gorrett and a photo of his naked upper chest. 

Keith Gorrett was fired immediately after his boss was notified of the sexual harassment. Photo / 123RF 

She told Gray that on multiple occasions Gorrett had asked her to send him a photo of her breasts, that he had talked with her about erectile dysfunction, had touched her bottom and tried to kiss her. 

The ERA heard Gorrett admitted his conduct when confronted at an informal meeting with Gray, who then fired him on the spot, citing the woman’s safety. 

Gray later acknowledged in an email to Gorrett that he did not follow the formal process but saw “no benefit” given the admissions. 

“The potential outcome was clear, and the safety and wellbeing of the victim was the most important matter of focus at that time,” the email said. 

Why was Gorrett unjustifiably dismissed? 

In the decision, Greening said Gray had sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that the woman was being sexually harassed by Gorrett. 

But the authority found there were “significant defects” in the process followed, which resulted in Gorrett being treated unfairly and therefore unjustifiably dismissed. 

“Mr Gorrett was not given advance notice of the meeting. He did not know what the meeting was about. 

“Mr Gorrett was not aware of the allegations prior to the meeting and was not provided with an opportunity to provide a response.” 

Greening said that because of this, $12,000 compensation to Gorrett would be sufficient. 

But because Gorrett’s conduct was not only blameworthy but also wholly contributed to the situation giving rise to the dismissal, it was appropriate for the compensation to be reduced to nil, it was found. 

Instead, the company was ordered to pay just $500 to the Crown. 

Gray told NZME he did not regret how he handled the situation and did what was in the woman’s best interests. 

“In the moment, I felt I had no option but to handle this matter in the way I did to protect the young lady concerned from further emotional and possibly physical harm. 

“In my view, we should never risk public safety to adhere to a prescribed process. 

“Imagine the sleepless nights if anything untoward had happened to the young lady while I deliberated. Of course, there is a balance but the evidence of harm and risk was so compelling.” 

He said he supported the authority’s decision for no compensation. 

“The ERA member did a great job, and for the real victim, the young lady who was abused, she feels heard and supported. For me personally, that is the win we should be focused on here.” 

Gorrett told NZME the process had been “the most traumatic thing that has ever happened in my life”. 

He said he would like to forget about the ordeal and “try to get on with our lives”. 

Gorrett said he had nothing further to add about the case or lack of compensation. 

Law change will impact these cases 

Speaking to NZME about the case, employment law expert William Buckley said a 100% reduction in compensation was “rare”. 

But he said recent amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000, which came into effect in February, would have a direct impact on this area of law. 

This included that where an employee’s actions contributed to the situation that gave rise to their personal grievance, and their actions amount to serious misconduct, the authority must not provide any of the usual remedies, even if the employee establishes their claim. 

“The type of conduct seen in Gorrett is exactly what would be captured under the new section of the Employment Relations Act 2000. 

“As such, this new section of the Act will remove any discretion from the Authority in relation to the usual remedies where the employee contributed to their grievance and their actions amounted to serious misconduct. 

“In my view, this new section of the Act will be more consequential going forward than the determination in Gorrett.” 

Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering lower South Island courts. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism. 

SEXUAL HARM 

Where to get help:
If it's an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you've ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone, contact Safe to Talk confidentially, any time 24/7:
• Call 0800 044 334
• Text 4334
• Email support@safetotalk.nz
• For more info or to web chat visit safetotalk.nz
Alternatively contact your local police station - click here for a list.
If you have been sexually assaulted, remember it's not your fault.