Sacked Playford boss wanted lawyers to quiz council staff

Ousted Playford Council CEO Mal Hemmerling told his lawyers to attempt to interview his colleagues as part of an investigation into claims he bullied and harassed staff, according to court documents.

Mal Hemmerling is looking at ways to grow Elizabeth in Adelaide's Northern suburbs.

• Hemmerling stood down pending investigation
• Playford Council chief executive sacked
• Council in crisis: ‘Game of Thrones meets Seinfeld’

Sacked council boss Mal Hemmerling instructed his lawyers to attempt to interview his colleagues as part of an investigation into allegations that he bullied and harassed staff, according to court documents.

His request, revealed in an affidavit filed as part of a Supreme Court action against Playford Council, was made a week before he was dismissed with immediate effect on Thursday over claims of sexual harassment, bullying and mismanagement.

The council agreed to Dr Hemmerling’s request but only if its lawyers were present.

The Advertiser revealed Dr Hemmerling, who has denied any misconduct, launched legal action on Wednesday seeking a judicial review to quash the council’s decision to suspend him pending the outcome of an investigation.

Dr Hemmerling’s lawyer, Greg Griffin, argued the council had acted beyond its caretaker provisions when it suspended Dr Hemmerling just days from the local government elections.

He is also seeking an injunction against investigator Susan Zeitz, arguing her inquiry was flawed and says the council stood him down despite not knowing the specific concerns against him.

Sacked Playford council chief executive officer Mal Hemmerling. Picture: Facebook

On December 3, the council’s lawyer Natasha Jones of Kelledy Jones wrote to Mr Griffin that her firm was “aware” that he had written to several council employees “inviting them to an interview in relation to the allegations”.

“Can you please advise as a matter of some priority whether the intention of these proposed interviews is to inform any response that your client may wish to provide Ms Zeitz,” she wrote, requesting a reply before December 7.

“For the avoidance of doubt, if no response is received by this time, the investigation will proceed to its conclusion.”

Mr Griffin replied on December 4 confirming his firm had written to persons “most likely” to have been involved in Ms Zeitz review to “enable us to assist our client in the preparation for his interview”.

“We have now been advised by your office that council does not object to staff members providing witness statements to us provided that a member of your firm is present during any such interview,” he wrote.

“The issue will be whether staff members that we may choose to interview will most likely feel intimidated by the presence of a solicitor from Kelledy Jones Lawyers.

“May we respectfully suggest that there be a meeting between us so as to attempt to agree a set of protocols to enable the process to go forward in a collaborative fashion.”

Mr Griffin wrote another letter on December 4 confirming that he had instructions to issue court proceedings challenging the “validity and legality” of the decision to suspend Dr Hemmerling.