The Employment Relations Authority has found Brandt Tractor NZ unjustifiably dismissed a Waikato-based sales manager, awarding compensation and lost wages.
Authority member Helen van Druten ruled Nicholas Pilcher was unjustifiably dismissed in April 2024 after the company failed to carry out a fair investigation into multiple complaints about his conduct.
Pilcher, who had been promoted to sales manager in 2023, was dismissed for serious misconduct following four complaints from employees alleging bullying, inappropriate behaviour and harassment.
While the Authority accepted the allegations were serious and warranted investigation, it found Brandt’s process fell short.
“A fair and reasonable employer in these circumstances would fully investigate the allegations,” the Authority said.
The decision-maker relied on consistent complaints and internal discussions, but the Authority found no substantive investigation was carried out and Mr Pilcher was not given sufficient information to respond.
He was dismissed after being told only the general nature of the allegations, without access to the complaints themselves.
The Authority said this meant he was unable to provide an informed response before the decision was made.
“The way the broad allegations was framed left Mr Pilcher only to offer a bare denial,” the determination said.
It also found the process leading to his removal from the workplace was flawed, with his access to work cut off without proper consultation.
The Authority said this “unjustifiably disadvantaged” Pilcher.
Brandt argued it had to act quickly due to concerns for employee safety and fears of retaliation from complainants, but the Authority found there was no immediate risk justifying the lack of process.
Despite the failings, the Authority did not find Brandt had acted in bad faith, instead concluding the company prioritised confidentiality and safety concerns over its procedural obligations.
Pilcher was awarded four months’ lost wages and $22,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, reduced by 12% for his contribution to the situation.
The Authority said he bore some responsibility for workplace tensions, noting he rejected earlier support and feedback following a complaint in early 2024.
After the reduction, total compensation was set at $19,360.
The Authority also noted Brandt had interfered with Pilcher’s job search after dismissal by contacting a prospective employer, which contributed to his financial loss.
Costs were reserved.
