��һ�ǿ�����

A farm worker says he had to beg and borrow from family to support his partner and three children after his bosses fired him and kicked him out of his home at Christmas.

James Wakefield was the sole earner supporting his family, including a newborn.

He lost his job, his accommodation, and said he developed shingles after battling his bosses.

Now those bosses have been told to pay him $30,000 compensation.

Wakefield started working for Palmerston North sharemilkers Lance Wakelin and Alicia Archer (known as the partnership) on June 1, 2022, but things soon soured, with Wakefield saying he was fired on December 17, 2022.

His bosses say he “blindsided” them and claimed he was cruel to livestock, while playing them off against the farm owner.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) didn’t buy it, saying there was no investigation into their allegations, while not all the concerns raised by them were put to Wakefield and that he was given no opportunity to respond to their concerns.

Wakelin told the ERA Wakefield was angry, aggressive and violent towards cows on the farm. He claimed Wakefield had threatened him and that after dismissing him, the partnership had to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to have him removed from the house.

He said Wakefield had beaten a cow with a hose and it fell into a cowshed pit and broke its leg.

He said he did not witness this but said his partner had.

He also alleged he received messages threatening to “smash me”. Archer gave evidence that there were two times she recalled seeing Wakefield beat cows.

Wakefield said he was aware that Wakelin, especially, had some issues with the farm owner, but that he had made it clear to his employer that he did not wish to become involved in any issues arising between the partnership and the farm owner.

Disciplinary action: Text messages exchanged

According to a recently released decision, Wakefield had been asked to attend a disciplinary meeting on December 11, 2022, as Wakelin had concerns about dishonesty relating to conversations, he said, Wakefield had had with himself and the farm manager.

Wakelin was also concerned Wakefield had breached his duty of confidentiality while the correspondence also alluded to other matters around animal health issues.

Wakefield messaged him the following day asking when the meeting would be held. Wakelin told him the meeting had been postponed as his son had Covid.

Wakefield messaged him back, telling Wakelin the matter was affecting his mental health and he needed time off work. But the request was rejected and Wakelin’s reply included, “If you had been honest with me, you wouldn’t be needing to attend a disciplinary meeting. “

The pair continued text exchanges with each "aggressively espousing their differing points of view".

The pair continued text exchanges with each “aggressively espousing their differing points of view”. The final text of the day from Wakelin telling Wakefield he was required to take a drug test the following morning, and failure to do so would be considered serious misconduct.

Wakefield saw his doctor the following day and was issued with a medical certificate stating he was medically unfit for work for seven days.

The following day, Wakelin texted Wakefield, saying he was aware Wakefield had not turned up for the drug test and wanted to know why.

Wakefield said he had seen his lawyer, who had told him no proper process was taken and that he was not required to take the test. He pointed out he was on sick leave and told Wakelin he would receive a letter the following day from his lawyer.

On December 15, Wakelin texted Wakefield, telling him he had not received the letter and that he should chase up his lawyer.

The next day, a meeting was confirmed for December 20.

On December 17, Wakelin texted asking Wakefield if he was well enough to attend a meeting that day, rather than on December 20 “so we can get this s..t sorted out Asap?”.

Wakefield said he didn’t want to meet without his lawyer, then, finally, on Saturday, December 17, Wakelin hand-delivered a letter to Wakefield terminating his employment.

‘Stressful and terrible’

Wakefield told the ERA he had lost $10,984 in wages and found himself with no income to support his partner, with three children to feed, and no immediate prospect of employment.

He stated that the position was “stressful and terrible”.

His relationship with his partner was put under unnecessary stress and the loss of his job was a contributory factor in putting the relationship under strain.

Wakelin said the relationship was always beyond repair as Wakefield had interfered with his relationship to the farm owner.

Employment Relations Authority member Geoff O’Sullivan said Wakefield was unjustifiably dismissed and ordered Wakelin and Archer to pay $10,984 lost wages, $18,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings and $1196 on account of costs.

Al Williams is an Open Justice reporter for the New Zealand Herald, based in Christchurch. He has worked in daily and community titles in New Zealand and overseas for the last 16 years. Most recently he was editor of the HC Post, based in Whangamata. He was previously deputy editor of Cook Islands ��һ�ǿ�����.