Kerikeri kiwifruit company loses challenge in Employment Court
A Northland kiwifruit company has failed in a bid to overturn an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruling the company was wrong to terminate a trainee orchard manager after a 90-day trial period.
The ERA late last year ordered Farrand Orchards in Kerikeri to pay Michael Tane $15,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings and a further $18,480 being three months’ lost remuneration.
The company was also ordered to pay him $1478 in holiday pay as part of his claim for unjustifiable dismissal.
The only aspect of the ERA decision Farrand Orchards unsuccessfully challenged in the Employment Court was the ERA’s conclusion the 90-day trial provision was invalid.
Company director Kerry Farrand said he had now taken the matter to the Court of Appeal and is awaiting the judgment.
On March 17, 2019, Farrand made Tane a verbal employment offer after an onsite interview between them.
Farrand told the ERA he made it clear during the course of the interview any offer would be conditional on Tane completing a 90-day trial period as he had learnt it was a necessary requirement while employing staff over many years.
Tane accepted Farrand outlined bad experiences with staff in the past and that he emphasised the importance of trust and integrity.
However, he said there was no mention of a 90-day trial period and Farrand did not offer employment which was conditional on that basis.
On March 17, Farrand emailed
Tane a written employment agreement that was unsigned, undated, did not have Tane’s name, job description or contain pay details.
It contained a 90-day trial period which Tane acknowledged but said he did not pick up at the time.
He relocated from Auckland to a house Farrand provided on the orchard and started work on April 1 before he signed the employment agreement. The agreement was eventually signed.
On June 21, Farrand told Tane he was giving him seven days nonwritten notice of dismissal because Tane was “too tall”, without elaborating because he did not wish to cause his worker further embarrassment.
Farrand said he had not insisted on Tane signing an employment agreement before he started because he did not wish to disturb him while he was settling into his new accommodation.
In retrospect, Farrand said the decision was a mistake.
Tane told the ERA had there been a 90-day trial period, he would not have accepted such an offer or if he had, he would not have moved into the orchard house until the 90 days was over.
He moved his family and belongings to Kerikeri on the understanding he was moving into the orchard lodging for at least three years.
The ERA found the company’s failure to ensure the written employment agreement containing the 90-day trial period was executed prior to Tane’s employment commencing was fatal to its reliance on that term.
Employment Court judge Bruce Corkill agreed.