[77] The respondent also filed affidavits sworn by its Senior Legal Counsel, Hugh Roberts, and by its Senior Manager of Group Resilience, Giles Carter.

[78] Prior to joining Air New Zealand in 2016, Mr Carter had almost 25 years of experience in security and operations in both public and private sector positions including with the British Army, Australian Defence Force as a senior operations manager, and as a senior operations manager and security manager working for an oil and gas field services company in Iraq. As Senior Manager of Group Resilience at Air New Zealand, he is responsible for operational and corporate security. Mr Carter says that as part of its commitment to providing its employees with a safe working environment, the respondent has adopted a “People, Safety and Working Policy”, the intent of which includes:

We will continuously strive to eliminate serious harm and ensure as far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of our customers, employees, contractors, and visitors in all our endeavours.

[79] Mr Carter has exhibited the respondent’s Group Security Watch List Process Standard Operating Procedure document (the Watch List SOP), which he says was developed to provide a robust structure and consistency for the respondent’s treatment of unruly passengers. The Watch List SOP sets out the process by which the respondent and its staff are required to deal with any incidents considered to involve unruly, disruptive or dangerous conduct by customers. The process requires employees to report any conduct which they consider may be a threat to the safety of the respondent’s aircraft, staff, passengers or facilities. The reporting requires a written Operational Safety Report (OSR). The OSR is then referred to the Group Security section for investigation by a security advisor who collates information relating to the reported incident. Once the information has been collected, analysed and evaluated, a risk assessment is conducted to determine the severity of the incident and the appropriate response. The OSR provides four potential outcomes: no further action; information only; warning letter; ban. Mr Carter says that any decision to impose an information only, warning letter, or ban outcome is first subject to peer review within the Group Security section. Further, that the recommended outcome must be approved by the Group Security Manager, who must also personally approve and sign any warning or ban letter. In taking that step, the Group Security Manager consults with other relevant stakeholders, including the respondent’s legal counsel.

[80] In his affidavit Mr Carter describes how staff reported the incident involving the applicant in the Koru Lounge at Nelson Airport on 1 December 2018 in accordance with the OSR and how the incident was thereafter investigated, documented and assessed. This process led to the issue of the warning letter sent to the applicant on 21 December 2018.

[81] Mr Carter also refers to the applicant’s conduct after the warning letter had been sent to her. These further incidents are said to have occurred:

(a) On 1 January 2019 at the Koru Lounge at Auckland Airport, the applicant and her family arrived back in New Zealand from India. Her conduct resulted in the preparation of a staff report which was sent to Group Security.

1. (b) On 27 or 28 January 2019, and on 21 February 2019, the applicant spoke to staff at Nelson Airport regarding the events of 1 December 2018. This resulted in the preparation of another OSR for Group Security. (It was resolved that no further action would be taken).
   
2. (c) The applicant wrote letters to the respondent’s Chief Executive, dated 7 March and 24 June 2019.
   
3. (d) A staff member attended the applicant at Wellington Airport on 25 June 2019. The staff member submitted an OSR. The OSR investigation concluded that the applicant’s behaviour in dealing with the staff member was intimidating, threatening and abusive. This assessment found that the applicant had engaged in sustained intimidation and bullying using aggressive behaviour which caused significant distress for staff. The assessment further found that the applicant had not accepted any responsibility for her actions and that she had a history of similar conduct. The assessment recommended that, as the applicant had not adhered to the respondent’s conditions of carriage, a one year ban should be imposed.
   

[82] Mr Carter says that he reviewed the assessment and discussed it and the recommended ban with his Group Security Manager, the Airport Manager for Nelson, and the respondent’s Head of Regional Airports. The consensus was that the warning letter sent to the applicant in December 2018 had not had its desired effect. On the contrary, the applicant had demonstrated a complete disregard for the letter. It appeared that there had been a deterioration in her behaviour and treatment of staff, her hostility intensifying in a focus on a specific staff member.

[83] Mr Carter says:

In my judgment and in the judgment [sic] of other security professionals in the Group Security function, the persistent and escalating nature of Ms Sharma’s intimidation and bullying almost immediately after the warning letter had been issued elevated that behaviour squarely into the major severity category. The integrity of Air New Zealand’s workplace had been breached and the welfare and operational capability of staff had been affected. A ban was therefore the only response available under the Decision Support Matrix

and the Watch List SOP. No other response would meet Air New Zealand’s security standards or its obligations to provide staff with a safe and secure working environment.

[84] The affidavit evidence filed by the respondent comprehensively establishes that its decision to impose the ban was reached following a process of information gathering, assessment, and review. That process commenced in December 2018 immediately following the events at the Nelson Airport Koru Lounge when the respondent received and considered the reports from its staff which set out their accounts of their dealings with the applicant. By that process, the respondent then sent a formal, written warning to the applicant about the possible consequences of her behaviour. Those consequences included denial of access to the Koru Lounge and being banned from flying on Air New Zealand’s services if her unacceptable conduct was repeated.