A nurse set fire to her car in an attempt to take her life, and was charged with two counts of arson. She applied for a position at an Aged Residential Care Facility, advised that she was awaiting the hearing of the charges and agreed to undergo a police clearance, and was offered and accepted a registered nurse position working three night shifts a week. A few months later she entered a guilty plea and was convicted. She was subsequently sentenced to eight months' home detention. It quickly became apparent that the manager who hired her had not advised the Facility of the nurse's circumstances, and the nurse was dismissed on the basis that she had been convicted of a serious criminal offence which could harm the Facility's reputation (in breach of clause 8.35 of the Facility's Code of Conduct). The Authority found that although the nurse had properly disclosed her circumstances, this did not prevent the Facility from relying on clause 8.35 when the nurse was subsequently convicted, and that: "Objectively assessed I find that having an employee convicted of arson in sole charge of some 40 elderly residents at night could reflect or impact negatively on [the Facility] in those circumstances". However, it was found that there was unfairness in the disciplinary process as the nurse was not made aware of the serious allegation of misconduct that she was required to answer: "The allegations were somewhat of a moveable feast". Notwithstanding that, the Authority found that the dismissal was justified "in spite of the process failures". X v Oceania Group (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZERA Christchurch 264