Blue Hunt v Lance Wakelin [2026] NZERA 463

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Blue Hunt, a full-time farm assistant employed by Lance Wakelin in the Wairarapa. After a heated cowshed exchange, Mr Wakelin later sent a text saying "the ship has sailed", that Mr Hunt's employment was over, and that Mr Hunt had two weeks to move out of the farm accommodation. The Authority found that Mr Hunt was dismissed and that the dismissal was unjustified because no fair process was followed. The determination also deals with minimum wage arrears, wage and time records, accommodation deductions, holiday pay, penalties, interest, and costs. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Hunt had worked on the dairy farm for Damian and Anna Hopkins' company until 31 March 2024. Mr Wakelin was to become the new contract milker and agreed to take on one or two of the Hopkins' staff members. Mr Hunt was offered a full-time farm assistant role starting on 2 April 2024.

The parties' evidence supported a working arrangement of 120 hours per fortnight over seven days each week. Mr Wakelin said the annual salary was $70,000 and that $300 per week, or $600 per fortnight, was deducted for accommodation. Mr Hunt said he was never provided with an employment agreement and disputed the signature on the agreement later produced by Mr Wakelin.

Mr Wakelin was found to be the employer

Mr Wakelin argued he was not the sole employer because the farm was operated by a partnership. The Authority rejected that position for the purpose of this case. No action had been brought against a partnership and no evidence of a partnership had been provided. The Authority was satisfied that Mr Wakelin employed Mr Hunt and dismissed him, and therefore Mr Wakelin was the employer.

The dismissal

On 2 September 2024, Mr Hunt and Mr Wakelin had an argument in the cow shed. Mr Wakelin said he raised concerns about work not done while he had been away and that things became heated. Mr Hunt said Mr Wakelin was abusive and confrontational. Mr Hunt left the cow shed but remained at the house beside it and expected Mr Wakelin would come to speak to him.

Instead, Mr Wakelin later sent a text saying, in substance, that "the ship has sailed", that Mr Hunt's employment was over, and that he had two weeks to move out. Mr Hunt treated this as dismissal. The Authority found that, based on Mr Hunt's evidence and Mr Wakelin's statement in reply and submissions, it was clear Mr Wakelin had dismissed Mr Hunt.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

Mr Wakelin accepted he dismissed Mr Hunt and relied on cumulative conduct concerns. The difficulty was that he had not followed any fair disciplinary process before dismissing him. The Authority said a fair and reasonable employer would have formalised the concerns, presented them to Mr Hunt, sought his response, and taken that response into account before making a final decision.

A fair and reasonable employer would also have assessed whether the matters reached the threshold for serious misconduct and whether dismissal was the appropriate outcome. There was no evidence that this consideration occurred. The Authority therefore found Mr Hunt was unjustifiably dismissed.

Wage and time records

Mr Wakelin confirmed that no wage and time records were kept. He attempted to place blame on Mr Hunt by saying Mr Hunt refused to complete time sheets kept in the cowshed. The Authority applied s 132 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Because the failure to keep records prejudiced Mr Hunt's ability to bring an accurate wage-arrears claim, and because Mr Wakelin did not prove otherwise, the Authority accepted Mr Hunt's claims about unpaid wages.

The Authority calculated the relevant entitlements on the basis of the agreement between the parties: 120 hours per fortnight, over seven days each week. Mr Wakelin said Mr Hunt did not work those hours over the whole employment period, but no records were available to support that position.

Minimum wage arrears

The applicable minimum wage was $23.15 per hour. On the Authority's calculation, the $70,000 annual salary over 120 hours per fortnight equated to $22.44 per hour. That was below the statutory minimum wage. The Authority ordered wage arrears of $937.20 gross, plus 8 percent holiday pay on that amount.

Accommodation deductions

Mr Hunt was provided with accommodation, but he said he was not provided with a compliant service tenancy agreement and did not give written consent for accommodation deductions. Mr Wakelin deducted $600 per fortnight from Mr Hunt's wages for rent.

The Authority held that, under s 7 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983, deductions from an employee's wages for lodging must not amount to more than five percent of wages. The deductions were approximately 22 percent of Mr Hunt's weekly pay. Because no tenancy agreement or employment agreement was signed, the Authority ordered reimbursement of deductions greater than five percent of wages for lodging.

Compensation

Mr Hunt sought $25,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. His evidence was that the dismissal had a profound effect on him: he had to live in his car for many months, the dismissal affected his health and wellbeing, he felt shame and loss of dignity because others knew about the dismissal, and he suffered financial stress.

The Authority accepted that the suddenness of the dismissal, and the fact that it was known to others on the farm including the farm owners, significantly affected Mr Hunt. Compensation was fixed at $20,000.

Lost wages

Mr Hunt was out of work until his previous employer approached him to return to work in December 2024. The Authority accepted that his ability to find alternative work was compromised, particularly because he and his family faced accommodation difficulties after the dismissal.

The Authority awarded three months' lost wages calculated at the applicable minimum wage, amounting to $18,057.

Penalties

Mr Hunt sought penalties for several employment-standards breaches: failure to retain and provide a signed individual employment agreement, failure to provide wage and time records, making unauthorised accommodation deductions, failure to pay the applicable minimum wage, and making lodging deductions above the statutory five percent limit.

The Authority ordered a $1,000 penalty. It considered it appropriate for Mr Hunt to receive $500 of that penalty, with the remainder payable to the Crown account. In doing so, the Authority referred to the non-financial impacts of non-compliance on vulnerable workers and the impact on Mr Hunt and his family, including living in a car for a period because they lost both accommodation and employment.

No contribution reduction

The Authority was required to consider whether Mr Hunt contributed to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance. It found no contribution. Mr Wakelin had not justified dismissing Mr Hunt for cause, and there had been no process that complied with the fair and reasonable employer test in s 103A of the Employment Relations Act.

Why this case matters

Hunt v Wakelin is a useful farm-employment case because it combines a summary dismissal with minimum employment standards issues. The dismissal finding is straightforward: even if an employer believes there are conduct concerns, dismissal cannot be justified where the employer simply ends the employment without a disciplinary process.

The record-keeping aspect is also important. Where the employer has failed to keep wage and time records and that failure prejudices the employee's ability to prove exact hours or arrears, s 132 of the Employment Relations Act may allow the Authority to accept the employee's claims unless the employer proves otherwise.

The accommodation issue is a further reminder that farm accommodation arrangements must be handled carefully. Written consent, compliant documentation and statutory limits matter. Deductions for lodging cannot simply be treated as an informal side arrangement if they reduce wages below what employment standards permit.

Practical takeaways

• Do not dismiss by text: a text ending employment will usually be treated as a dismissal and must be justified.
• Run the process first: concerns should be put in writing, evidence disclosed, response invited, and alternatives considered before dismissal.
• Keep wage and time records: the absence of records can allow the Authority to accept the employee's wage-arrears claim.
• Check minimum wage compliance: annual salary arrangements must still meet the hourly minimum wage across the hours actually worked or agreed.
• Accommodation deductions need care: lodging deductions require proper authority and must comply with statutory limits.
• Costs remain live: although costs were reserved, the successful applicant was given the usual opportunity to seek costs.

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.