No proper process followed when terminating worker before Xmas
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who claimed he was unfairly dismissed just before Christmas. The worker had been employed for approximately six months before receiving a termination letter with immediate effect.
The worker argued that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unjustified. He claimed he was terminated without being given a proper opportunity to respond to allegations, and that his employer failed to follow basic employment law requirements during the disciplinary process.
At stake was compensation for lost wages and hurt feelings, along with the significant impact on the worker who found himself without income during the holiday season. The worker also had to vacate his employment-provided accommodation just days after receiving the termination letter.
The case centred on a farm worker who started employment with a sharemilking partnership on 1 June 2022, with his employment ending on 17 December 2022. The sharemilking partnership operated on a farm they did not own, and the worker's terms were recorded in a Federated Farmers individual employment agreement.
Evidence showed the worker was aware that one employer had issues with the farm owner. However, the worker had made it clear he did not wish to become involved in these external disputes.
On 11 December 2022, the worker received a letter inviting him to attend a disciplinary meeting about potential serious misconduct. The letter primarily raised concerns about dishonesty related to conversations the worker allegedly had with the employer and farm manager, suggesting a possible breach of confidentiality. Animal welfare concerns were also briefly mentioned.
The male employer sent this letter, while testimony revealed the female employer "played little part in the process which led to [the worker's] dismissal" though she remained "jointly and severally liable for the Partnership's actions."
When the worker asked about the meeting timing, the employer postponed it because his son had Covid. That same day, the worker requested time off for stress-related reasons, which was rejected.
The employer's text stated: "If you had been honest with me, you wouldn't be needing to attend a disciplinary meeting." The situation escalated with the employer demanding the worker take a drug test the next morning or face serious misconduct charges.
Instead, the worker saw his doctor and received a medical certificate stating he was unfit for work for seven days. When questioned about missing the drug test, the worker explained his lawyer had advised that "no proper process was taken" making the requirement invalid.
After several days of tense exchanges, a meeting was set for 20 December. However, on 17 December, the employer suggested meeting earlier "so we can get this s--- sorted out asap."
When the worker declined to meet without legal representation, the employer hand-delivered a termination letter that evening, also requiring him to vacate his farm accommodation by 24 December.
The worker, as the sole income earner supporting his partner and three children including a newborn, faced significant hardship. The timing—just before Christmas—left him without income or housing.
In his testimony, the worker described having to "beg and borrow from family to survive." He developed Shingles, which he attributed to the stress, and reported that his relationship with his partner suffered under the strain.
The employers countered that the worker was "heavily involved in issues" between them and the farm owner and was "playing both sides." They also alleged animal mistreatment, though evidence showed these concerns hadn't been formally raised during employment.
During cross-examination, it emerged that a Facebook post (not made by the worker) had upset the employer on 12 December.
,maThe employer stated that "the relationship was always beyond repair because [the worker] had interfered with [the employer's] relationship to the farm owner."
The ERA examined whether the employers had followed proper dismissal procedures under Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act, which requires thorough investigation of allegations, proper communication of concerns, reasonable opportunity to respond, and genuine consideration of explanations.
The ERA determination stated clearly: "What is very clear from the evidence, and supported by the documentary evidence, is that there was no investigation into the allegations, not all the concerns subsequently raised by [the employer] had been put to [the worker], [the worker] was given no opportunity to respond to those concerns and accordingly, the [employers] simply did not consider explanations he may have had because [the worker] was dismissed before he had the chance to give any."
The Authority found that while several allegations were made, "the driving force in [the employer's] view was the fact he believed [the worker] had come between him and the farm owner and this undermined him."
The ERA concluded: "In conclusion, [the worker] was unjustifiably dismissed and accordingly is entitled to a consideration of remedies." Based on what was described as "poignant" testimony, the Authority awarded lost wages of $10,984.60 (based on an annual salary of $75,000) and $18,000 for "hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings."
The employers were ordered to pay these amounts plus costs and filing fees totalling $1,196.56 within 28 days of the 24 February 2025 determination.
The ERA's decision highlights four key procedural requirements under Section 103A: sufficient investigation of allegations, properly communicating concerns to the employee, providing reasonable opportunity to respond, and genuinely considering explanations before dismissal.
