ERA backs First Security in dismissal of Auckland shift manager Sahil Sahil

CloseUp.co.nz Article

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ruled that First Security Guard Services Limited acted fairly when it dismissed Auckland shift manager Sahil Sahil, finding the company had both substantive and procedural grounds to end his employment.

The case, issued as [2025] NZERA 310, centred on allegations that Sahil, employed as a Shift Manager (known internally as an Alpha Six), repeatedly failed to carry out his duties, used company vehicles for personal trips, and left shifts early without authorisation

Sahil joined First Security in February 2023 on a full-time contract. His role was to directly supervise guards across Auckland, conduct compliance spot checks, induct new staff onto client sites, and respond to emergencies. Alpha Six managers are considered “first responders,” with responsibilities stretching from random site audits to covering sick guards, and they have clearances to sensitive sites including New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) bases, data centres, and Ports of Auckland

First Security said the role required a high degree of trust and visibility, as Sahil’s performance directly affected frontline compliance and client confidence.

By January 2024, concerns about Sahil’s conduct were escalating. GPS and vehicle tracking records showed that on multiple dates — including 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 January — company vehicles assigned to him were at residential addresses for extended periods during rostered shifts. On 13 January, data suggested he spent more than five hours at a private address while rostered on an overnight shift.

CCTV from First Security’s head office appeared to show him finishing a shift early on 15 January. GPS logs also suggested he left an NZDF assignment at 4:30am, hours before the end of his rostered shift. Management alleged that on several occasions he returned company vehicles early, well before his shift was due to end.

The company also claimed Sahil failed to complete the required number of site checks. Where other Alpha Six staff averaged 16 site visits per shift, his reports showed only around five. Reports were also missing vehicle registrations despite repeated instructions to include them.

Sahil admitted some of the behaviour but defended it as acceptable under his understanding of the role. He told managers he sometimes sat in his personal car near the office, watching movies or waiting for calls, because he was more comfortable there. He admitted using company vehicles without permission, saying he believed it was allowed.

He also said he left shifts for physiotherapy appointments for back pain, but management argued he never properly notified them so cover could be arranged. He claimed a guard at NZDF told him it was fine to leave early as there were enough staff on site.

At one meeting he stated: “Like it’s not a proper role. I have a laptop, I have a work phone. Yeah, I can work from anywhere.”

First Security ran an investigation beginning 19 January 2024. Sahil was given a written outline of allegations, GPS evidence, and schedules. He was told he could bring a representative and was later supported by his union, E tū.

Management said his responses — including that he had been watching movies, leaving shifts early, and using company cars for personal reasons — did not explain or excuse the conduct. After follow-up checks, including with an NZDF guard and internal managers, the company formed the view his actions undermined trust and confidence.

On 7 February 2024 First Security issued a tentative decision letter finding serious misconduct. A final meeting was held on 8 February, where Sahil apologised. The dismissal was confirmed on 13 February 2024.

Sahil argued to the ERA that he had been unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged, claiming the process was biased and that his English skills were a barrier. The Authority rejected this.

Authority member Eleanor Robinson found First Security:

• Clearly set out the allegations and provided supporting documents.

• Gave Sahil multiple chances to respond, including with union support.

• Investigated further after hearing his explanations.

• Genuinely considered his evidence, including physiotherapy records.

The ERA ruled Sahil’s behaviour breached his duties under his employment agreement, including compliance with policies, following instructions, and not undermining trust. His dismissal was found to be substantively and procedurally justified.

The claim of unjustifiable disadvantage also failed.

Costs were reserved, with the Authority encouraging both parties to settle them directly.

The full ERA determination is publicly available here: 2025-NZERA-310 – Sahil v First Security Guard Services Ltd (PDF).