Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods (NZ) Limited [2026] NZERA 179

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

Arnold Putt worked as a packaging operator at the Mauri Hamilton site of George Weston Foods (NZ) Limited. The case arose out of a confrontation on 8 November 2024 between Mr Putt and his production manager, Michael Heyes, about task priority in the warehouse. Mr Putt said he had effectively been fired. The company said he had not been dismissed at all and that he was simply told to go home to cool off after the argument.

The Authority accepted the employer's version on the dismissal point. It found Mr Heyes did not tell Mr Putt he was fired, and that a reasonable observer in Mr Putt's position would not have treated the instruction to go home as an unequivocal dismissal. The Authority also noted that Mr Heyes did not have authority to dismiss staff on the spot, and that GWF moved quickly afterwards to say that Mr Putt's employment was still ongoing and that an investigation would follow.

That did not mean the employer got everything right. The Authority found GWF was inconsistent and unclear about whether its internal investigation was also examining Mr Heyes' conduct, as opposed to only Mr Putt's conduct. In the Authority's view, that lack of clarity undermined Mr Putt's confidence in the process and amounted to unjustified disadvantage.

However, most of the other complaints failed. The Authority did not accept that GWF acted unjustifiably in relation to the leave/pay issues, the appointment of the investigator, the final written warning, the handling of CCTV, the claimed learning-disability issues, the alleged good faith breach, or the claimed reduction in overtime after Mr Putt returned to work. The only remedy awarded was compensation of $8,000 for the limited disadvantage that was established.

Key findings and reasoning

• No dismissal: The Authority found Mr Heyes did not say "you're fired" or words to that effect. On the evidence, Mr Putt was told he could go home, not that his employment had ended.
• Context mattered: Mr Heyes had no authority to summarily dismiss staff, and Mr Putt knew disciplinary matters at GWF were normally dealt with through a formal process rather than an instant on-the-spot firing.
• Employment relationship remained on foot: By 11 November 2024 GWF was telling Mr Putt that it regarded his employment as ongoing and that the events would be investigated. The Authority also noted that, even if the no-dismissal conclusion were wrong, the employment relationship was re-established relatively promptly.
• One successful disadvantage point: GWF was inconsistent about whether the internal investigation was examining only Mr Putt's conduct or also whether Mr Heyes had acted improperly. That lack of clarity was unfair and disadvantaged Mr Putt.
• Final warning upheld: The Authority held that the final written warning was not unjustified. It accepted that GWF was entitled to treat repeated abusive language directed at a manager, together with failure to wear required safety gear, as serious misconduct. It also noted that dismissal could have been an available outcome but was not imposed.
• Leave and pay complaints failed: The Authority did not accept that GWF acted unfairly by failing to automatically pay sick leave for the initial period of absence before the relevant medical certificate was supplied. Once the certificate was corrected to cover the earlier dates, GWF paid that period.
• No right to discretionary leave on these facts: The Authority was not satisfied it was unfair for GWF not to offer special or discretionary leave while Mr Putt was away from work.
• No established disadvantage from direct contact or investigator appointment: Although it would have been preferable to check representation status before contacting Mr Putt directly, and although Mr Putt challenged Ms Jain's role, the Authority did not find either point caused actionable disadvantage.
• No proven overtime disparity: The Authority accepted there was less overtime to go around in the relevant period and was not satisfied Mr Putt was treated worse than comparable workers after his return.
• Non-publication refused: The Authority declined to make a non-publication order because the evidence did not establish likely adverse effects sufficient to displace the starting point of open justice.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $8,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i)
• Contribution deduction: Nil
• Leave reimbursement / wage-type remedy: No order made
• Costs: Reserved

Note: check the determination itself for the authoritative wording of the orders and any later costs determination.

Why this case matters

• A worker genuinely believing they were fired is not enough by itself. The Authority still asks what was actually said and what a reasonable observer would have understood in context.
• An employer can defeat a dismissal claim but still be found to have acted unjustifiably in the way it handled the process.
• Where only a narrow procedural unfairness is established, remedies can be limited. Here, Mr Putt received compensation only, with no leave reimbursement and no finding that the warning or dismissal allegations succeeded.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.