he only thing Gregory Fellowes did wrong when he dismissed an employee for animal abuse was he didn’t provide the employee written statements from witnesses and last year the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ordered him to pay compensation.
It raised concerns from lawyers because it was a departure from case law. But following Fellowes’ appeal, an Employment Court judgement in August found the behaviour of the employee, Nathan Morunga, was so “egregious” it reached the conclusion it was one of the rare cases where one party contributed 100% to the consequences and no remedies were payable. Instead, it ordered Morunga to pay Fellowes $1750 in costs.
Fellowes said the result was a relief, there was a principle at stake when he had to pay compensation to an employee who had abused his cows and the court had agreed it had occurred.
“My gripe was they reckoned we did something wrong and I think we handled it pretty damn well.”
Fellowes had engaged a dispute resolution expert before he dismissed Morunga after animal abuse incidences on the farm. Though a summary of the witness statement was given in a letter to the employee, Fellowes did not provide copies of the entire statement and failing to do so was a procedural error that prompted the authority to award compensation to Morunga.
“I think the whole system isn’t very well designed as we had to prove we’d done nothing wrong,” Fellowes said.
“People shouldn’t be able to just take a (unfair dismissal) claim because they feel like it.
“It’s a lot of legal stuff and a long way from milking cows.”
Fellowes thought he had done everything correctly, including getting the help of a dispute resolution expert, but the experience showed just how carefully employers needed to go through the process of dismissing an employee.
