ClickCease
No Win No Fee Employment Advocates
Employee Case Form 0800 946 549

Benjamin Thomas v Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy [2025] NZERA 592 - Constructive dismissal after indefinite paid suspension

Unfair Dismissal Cases 36 Constructive Dismissal 6

In Benjamin Thomas v Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy [2025] NZERA 592 (Christchurch, investigation meeting in Timaru), the ERA found the employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged by an indefinite paid suspension imposed without proper basis or process, and then unjustifiably constructively dismissed after months of silence and failure to investigate. Remedies included $3,545.75 lost wages, $30,000 compensation (split $5,000 disadvantage and $25,000 constructive dismissal), and costs of $4,571.55, payable within 21 days.

Employee Case Review Compensation

This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Benjamin Thomas v Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy [2025] NZERA 592 (Christchurch registry, Member of Authority Andrew Dallas, determination dated 24 September 2025).

At a glance: The ERA found Mr Thomas was unjustifiably disadvantaged by an effectively indefinite paid suspension imposed without a proper basis or process, and was then unjustifiably constructively dismissed after months of silence and failure to investigate or communicate. The respondents did not participate in the Authority process and the matter proceeded as a proof hearing.
Direct link to the full ERA determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2025/2025-NZERA-592.pdf

Quick facts

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 592
  • Case number: 3327780
  • Registry: Christchurch
  • Investigation meeting: 31 July 2025 (Timaru)
  • Member: Andrew Dallas (Chief of the Employment Relations Authority)
  • Applicant: Benjamin Thomas
  • Respondents: Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy
  • Role: Dairy Farm Senior Assistant (sharemilking operation, Hunter Hills district, South Canterbury)
  • Issues decided: Unjustified disadvantage (suspension), constructive dismissal, remedies, contribution, costs

What happened

Mr Thomas started employment on 28 November 2022 and was provided accommodation on the farm under a service tenancy. He disclosed at interview that he used prescribed medicinal cannabis. The employment relationship later deteriorated after he raised concerns about pay deductions and the terms of his employment agreement, and after periods of stress leave.

Timeline (key events)

  • 29 April 2024: Mr Thomas was placed on paid suspension in a cowshed meeting, said to be due to unspecified "health and safety risks".
  • 30 April 2024: A further meeting raised concerns about medicinal cannabis dosage; Mr Thomas provided medical material supporting that prescribed use did not create a health and safety issue.
  • 6 May 2024: Mr Thomas was told he was subject to disciplinary action relating to medicinal cannabis and would remain on paid suspended leave; promised solicitor correspondence did not arrive.
  • May to July 2024: Repeated attempts to obtain clarity and progress were met with silence (from the respondents and their solicitors).
  • 25 June 2024: Personal grievance raised for unjustified disadvantage (suspension).
  • 29 July 2024: After months of no communication, Mr Thomas resigned and alleged unjustified constructive dismissal.
  • 31 July 2025: Investigation meeting held in Timaru; the respondents did not attend.
  • 24 September 2025: Determination issued.

Findings: unjustified suspension

The ERA held the suspension was unfair and unjustified. Key points included:

  • No proper basis: The initial "health and safety" justification was amorphous and lacked specificity.
  • Process failure: The respondents did not investigate, did not provide details, and did not meaningfully engage with Mr Thomas during an effectively indefinite suspension.
  • Medicinal cannabis issue: The later reliance on prescribed medicinal cannabis was inconsistent with prior knowledge (it was disclosed at interview) and was not treated as "non-prescribed drugs".
  • Good faith: The prolonged lack of communication breached the duty to be responsive and constructive under s 4.

Findings: constructive dismissal

The ERA applied established constructive dismissal principles and concluded the respondents' actions and omissions (indefinite suspension, failure to communicate, and failure to investigate) were sufficiently serious to destroy the employment relationship and make resignation reasonably foreseeable. The ERA found Mr Thomas was unjustifiably constructively dismissed.

Practical takeaway: Employers cannot "park" an employee on paid suspension indefinitely with vague allegations, no investigation, and no communication. Even if pay continues, the process can still amount to an unjustified disadvantage and can lead to a constructive dismissal finding.

Remedies and costs ordered

Money orders (payable within 21 days)

Order Amount
Lost wages (difference over 3 months) $3,545.75
Compensation - unjustified disadvantage $5,000.00
Compensation - constructive dismissal $25,000.00
Total compensation $30,000.00
Costs (daily tariff) $4,500.00
Reimbursement of Authority lodgement fee $71.55
Total costs $4,571.55
Overall total ordered $38,117.30
The ERA made no deduction for contributory conduct. The relocation expense claim ($1,500) was not awarded.

Why the lost wage award was limited

Mr Thomas obtained new full-time employment within about two weeks, but on a lower weekly wage and in a different region. The ERA accepted he mitigated his loss and awarded the wage difference for a three month period ($3,545.75).

Compensation assessment

The ERA described the impact as significant, including being suspended without proper notice, process, or explanation, being isolated and ignored for months while still living on the farm, and then being forced to resign. Total compensation awarded was $30,000.

Costs point: Where a respondent does not engage with the Authority process and a proof hearing is required, the costs outcome can be material. Here, the ERA applied the one-day tariff and ordered reimbursement of the lodgement fee.

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.

Open [2025] NZERA 592 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with suspension, investigation process, or constructive dismissal? We can help with strategy, evidence preparation, settlement, mediation, and representation in the ERA. (PG = Personal Grievance; ERA = Employment Relations Authority.)

Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form

Read more
Unfair Dismissal Cases Constructive Dismissal Workplace Investigations
0800 WIN KIWI

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Constructive Dismissal
Showing 1-6 of 37 related articles
Browse topics
Unfair Dismissal Cases 36 Unfair Dismissal 19 Employment Law Advice For Employers 10 Employment Lawyers 8 Redundancy 8 90 Day Trial 7 Constructive Dismissal 6 Costs 6 No Win No Fee 6 Employment Mediation 5 Casual Employment 3 Covid 19 3 ERA 2 Employment Court 1 Holidays Act 1