Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693

Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited proved that Herewini Dickson breached an important safety SOP while acting as a safety watch at its Mount Maunganui manufacturing site. But the Employment Relations Authority still found his suspension and dismissal unjustified because the process used to assess the seriousness of the incident was materially unfair.

Safety-watch incident at a hazardous plant

Mr Dickson began working for Ballance in 1996 and became permanent in 2004. On 9 January 2025 he was acting as a safety watch while another employee carried out maintenance work on the acidulation plant. The applicable SOP required the safety watch to remain on standby, in line of sight of the person carrying out the activity and ready to activate an emergency stop if required.

Ballance alleged Mr Dickson was distracted by his phone, did not maintain the required line of sight and was not sufficiently close to an emergency stop. Mr Dickson accepted he had only partial line of sight and that he had been using his phone while a family tragedy was unfolding.

The conduct could amount to serious misconduct

The Authority did not minimise the safety issue. It found Ballance had fairly established a breach of the SOP and that, in a safety-sensitive industrial environment, even a one-off act of negligence can be capable of amounting to serious misconduct. The difficulty was the process used to move from an SOP breach to dismissal.

Critical evidence about the HiPo classification was withheld

Ballance classified the event as a HiPo, or High Potential, event - one with realistic potential for a major or catastrophic consequence regardless of likelihood. That classification was central to the assessment of seriousness.

However, Mr Dickson was not told during the disciplinary meeting that Ballance would make a HiPo finding and was not given the statement of the employee whose safety he had been watching. That employee later told the Authority he had no concern for his health and safety given the work being performed and his proximity to the conveyor. Because Mr Dickson had not received that evidence, he could not respond to an important part of the reasoning used against him.

Thirty years of service and alternatives to dismissal

Ballance's preliminary and final outcome material did not adequately address alternatives to dismissal. The Authority was not satisfied that Mr Dickson's approximately 30 years of service and otherwise strong employment record were properly brought to bear on the final sanction.

Serious misconduct does not create an automatic entitlement to dismiss. The employer still has to decide whether dismissal itself falls within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer after considering the relevant circumstances.

The initial suspension was also unjustified

Mr Dickson was abruptly called to a meeting on 9 January without prior notice of the purpose of the meeting, the allegation or that suspension was being considered. A suspension letter followed about 43 minutes later. The Authority found this process did not give him a fair opportunity to understand and respond before the decision was made, establishing unjustified disadvantage.

Contribution reduced the remedies by 30 percent

Mr Dickson's own breach of the safety SOP was blameworthy conduct that contributed to the situation. The Authority therefore reduced the remedies by 30 percent. After that reduction, compensation was $9,800 for the dismissal and $1,750 for the unjustified suspension, with $18,773.49 gross awarded for 13 weeks' lost remuneration.

Why this case matters

Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients separates three questions that are often blurred together: whether misconduct occurred, whether it was sufficiently serious to justify dismissal, and whether the employer reached its decision through a fair process. An employer can establish genuine serious misconduct and still lose the dismissal case if the employee was not given the evidence and reasoning needed to answer the real case against them.

The decision is also useful on suspension. Sending an employee away before a fair opportunity to comment can itself create a separate personal grievance even where a later investigation identifies genuine concerns. See Unfair dismissal and Unjustified disadvantage.

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.