Authority awards $45,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case where a worker argued his redundancy was not genuine and instead occurred suspiciously soon after a workplace disagreement with management.
The worker claimed his employer dismissed him through redundancy without proper consideration of redeployment opportunities or genuine consultation. He argued the restructuring proposal, which would eliminate his role, came just two days after a disagreement with the trust's chairperson.
The worker also brought personal grievance claims of unjustified dismissal and disadvantage, citing unfair treatment arising from unsubstantiated allegations made against him during his employment.
The worker began his employment at the Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board in 2018 as a shepherd general before taking on the role of fencer general in 2019. His employment included accommodation on Chesterhope Station, one of three farming stations operated by the trust.
In October 2023, following a disagreement between the worker and the trust's chairperson, the employer announced plans to restructure operations by combining two farming blocks and creating a new livestock manager position that would make the worker's role redundant.
The employer's letter dated October 4, 2023, stated: "We think that to do that properly it would require a livestock manager with a full team of dogs who is fully aware and knowledgeable in all aspects of farm and stock management. This includes feed, budgeting, maintaining the blocks, buying, selling and marketing stock as well as other general farming duties."
The Authority found fundamental issues with the employer's approach to restructuring. According to the determination: "[The worker's] real duties were not adequately considered prior to the restructuring proposal being notified or the relevant decisions made regarding implementation of the same."
The Authority noted significant gaps in the business justification: "There was little evidence of the commercial basis for the proposal being discussed amongst the Board. No minutes or notes were produced, nor were any records produced of their being a reasonably comprehensive business or financial plan supporting any such decision making."
These findings supported the worker's argument that the employer failed to follow proper consultation processes or genuinely consider redeployment options, including his suggestion to trial the new livestock manager role.
During the restructuring process, the employer made serious allegations about the worker's conduct.
The Authority found these claims lacked proper foundation, stating: "The actions of [the employer] were also contrary to its good faith obligations and exposed [the worker] to ongoing unreasonable behaviour which was inconsistent with the requirement to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship."
The determination highlighted that the allegations significantly impacted the worker: "Not only were those matters not properly investigated, but they also unnecessarily inflamed the problems in the employment relationship and have impacted [the worker] on an ongoing basis. This has led to [the worker] experiencing shame and humiliation."
The Authority found that conduct and performance concerns, rather than genuine business reasons, drove the restructuring decision: "I find that the commercial basis for the decisions made were incidental to ulterior motives relating to conduct and performance."
After finding both the dismissal and disadvantage claims were justified, the Authority ordered the employer to pay the worker compensation of $45,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. An additional $8,055.19 was awarded for lost wages, covering the period between his dismissal and interim reinstatement.
While the worker sought permanent reinstatement, the Authority determined the employment relationship had irretrievably broken down, making reinstatement impracticable. The worker was ordered to vacate the farm accommodation within 28 days of the determination.
The ERA's decision emphasised the serious nature of the employer's actions, noting: "Not only was the dismissal motivated by erroneous conduct and performance concerns, but there have been ongoing actions that have undermined [the worker's] employment. Those actions have very clearly in my view amounted to unwarranted personal attacks."
