Worker disputes 'unfair' process, claims damages for 'humiliation' and 'loss of dignity'
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving an employment dispute between a dairy herd manager and his former employer, a farm partnership.
The dispute arose in the context of the dairy farming industry, where herd managers play a crucial role in overseeing the daily operations of the farm and ensuring the well-being of the livestock.
The worker in this case was employed by the farm partnership for a relatively short period, from April to July 2023, during which time several issues emerged that ultimately led to the termination of his employment.
The worker's challenges and unplanned absences
In the early stages of his employment, the worker faced personal challenges that required him to take unplanned leave on short notice.
As a new employee, he had not yet accrued any annual holiday or sick leave entitlements. The employment agreement provided for the consideration of other leave requests at the reasonable discretion of the employer.
The worker found himself in situations where he needed to care for his children due to the unavailability of their babysitter and to support his pregnant partner.
He communicated his absences to his manager through text messages, acknowledging that the time off would be unpaid. These absences led to informal discussions between the worker and his manager, who expressed concerns about the worker's reliability.
Breakdown of the employment relationship
According to records, despite an initial understanding reached between the worker and his manager, further absences occurred, leading to a more heated exchange.
The worker agreed that the employment arrangement was not working out for him, but he requested respect and time to find another job before leaving.
However, the employer took a different course of action and sent the worker a letter terminating his employment under the 90-day trial period clause in the employment agreement.
The worker, surprised by this development, sought advice and challenged the validity of the termination, arguing that the trial period had already ended.
Employer's attempt to withdraw termination
Upon realising that the wording of the trial period clause in the employment agreement was deficient, the employer reportedly attempted to unilaterally withdraw the termination.
This action led to a disagreement between the parties, with the worker's representative maintaining that a termination could not be withdrawn without the employee's consent.
The worker sought a meeting with his manager to discuss the concerns that led to the termination, but the employer did not respond directly and instead initiated a disciplinary investigation into the worker's reliability. This move further strained the already tense relationship between the parties.
The worker's resignation and subsequent claims
Faced with the employer's refusal to meet informally and insistence on proceeding with a disciplinary investigation, the worker ultimately resigned through a text message, stating that his employment would cease immediately.
He expressed his disappointment in the employer's handling of the matter and his hope for an agreeable resolution without involving the courts.
Following his resignation, the worker raised a personal grievance claim, arguing that he was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the employer's actions.
He sought remedies, including lost wages and compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
The employer's counterclaims
In response to the worker's claims, the employer raised counterclaims, alleging that the worker had breached the terms of the employment agreement.
The employer argued that the worker failed to give the required two weeks' notice upon resignation, did not pay an invoice for five weeks' rent, and left the property in an unacceptable condition.
The employer sought penalties against the worker for these alleged breaches, adding another layer of complexity to the already contentious employment dispute.
The ERA’s investigation
The ERA conducted an investigation into the matter, considering evidence from both parties, including witness statements and sworn affidavits. The authority examined the sequence of events leading up to the worker's dismissal and the subsequent actions taken by the employer.
The ERA found that the worker was indeed dismissed, rejecting the employer's argument that the worker had resigned.
The authority emphasised that a dismissal cannot be revoked or withdrawn without the agreement of the employee, and in this case, the worker did not consent to the withdrawal of the termination notice.
The ERA said that it "objectively assessed [the employer’s] actions, [which] amounted to a clear sending away of [the worker]", using the legal term "sending away" to describe the dismissal.
The ERA also highlighted the importance of following a fair process and providing justification for dismissal. In the absence of a valid trial period, the employer was expected to raise concerns and give the worker a reasonable opportunity to respond before taking any disciplinary action.
"While [the employer] points out it needed to address the concerns it had, which is why after purporting to withdraw the termination it wanted to investigate the concerns about [the worker’s] reliability, it had already dismissed him so was in fact trying to conduct an investigation into matters it had already made a decision about," the ERA said, noting the procedural irregularities in the employer's actions.
Furthermore, the ERA found that there were other performance concerns that were never raised with the worker, which was "inconsistent with the actions of a fair and reasonable employer."
The ERA's orders and remedies
After determining that the worker's dismissal was unjustified, the ERA proceeded to assess the appropriate remedies. The worker was awarded lost wages for a period of three months, taking into account his intention to resign and the likelihood that the employment relationship might not have lasted beyond that duration.
The ERA also awarded compensation to the worker for the humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings suffered as a result of the unjustified dismissal.
The authority considered the financial distress, health issues, and housing difficulties experienced by the worker and his family, as well as the general range of awards in similar cases.
"Given my findings above, considering the finding of unjustified dismissal and the financial distress and health and housing issues experienced by [the worker] and his family and the general range of awards in similar cases, I consider an appropriate award of compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to be $20,000.00," the ERA stated, acknowledging the significant impact of the dismissal on the worker's personal and professional life.
In its final orders, the ERA directed the employer to pay the worker lost wages amounting to $16,749.98 (gross) and compensation of $20,000.00 for the humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings resulting from the unjustified dismissal.
The case reminds employers about the importance of following fair processes, engaging in open communication with employees, and providing justification for any disciplinary actions taken.
