Natalie Butler-Smith v David and Dale Cavey t/a DG and DV Cavey Partnership [2026] NZERA 324

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination is about a part-time permanent farm assistant who went on parental leave and expected to return to work. Natalie Butler-Smith was employed by David and Dale Cavey, trading as DG and DV Cavey Partnership. Shortly before she was due to return from parental leave, she was told her employment was being terminated because of health and safety issues arising from having a baby on the farm. The ERA found the dismissal was unjustified. The Partnership did not attend the investigation meeting and did not justify its decision. The ERA ordered payment of unpaid work, 13 weeks lost wages, four weeks notice pay, and $20,000 compensation. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The short point

The employer did not attend the ERA investigation meeting and did not justify the dismissal. On the evidence accepted by the ERA, Ms Butler-Smith was simply told that a decision had been made to end her employment because of health and safety issues arising from her having a baby on the farm. There was no consultation with her, no real process, no opportunity to test the concern, and no exploration of alternatives.

That is not how a fair dismissal process works. Health and safety may be important, especially on a farm, but it does not allow an employer to skip the basic requirements of fair process and simply remove an employee from employment before she returns from parental leave.

Background

David and Dale Cavey operated a partnership called DG and DV Cavey Partnership. Ms Butler-Smith said she was employed by the Partnership as a part-time permanent farm assistant from around August 2022 until her dismissal in February 2024.

While employed by the Partnership, Ms Butler-Smith became pregnant. She entered into discussions with the Partnership about arrangements for her return to work after the birth of her baby. At first, the Partnership appeared open to accommodating her return to work. The determination records that the Partnership had previously done this for another employee.

Ms Butler-Smith went on parental leave in mid-August 2023. Her baby was born on 6 September 2023. On 20 October 2023, she provided the Partnership with a letter from Inland Revenue confirming that her last day of parental leave would be 18 February 2024. She was due to return to the farm on 19 February 2024.

Work performed while on parental leave

During parental leave, Ms Butler-Smith still attended the workplace twice a month. She helped the Partnership with paperwork for the Dairy Diary, including recording which cows were being treated for lameness or mastitis. She also completed the shed checklist.

Ms Butler-Smith said this was approximately two hours of work per month. She was not paid for that work. She claimed $192 for that unpaid work, calculated as two hours per month for four months. The ERA accepted her evidence and ordered that amount to be paid.

The dismissal before her return to work

On 13 February 2024, Ms Butler-Smith borrowed a trailer from the Partnership. When she returned the trailer, Dr David Cavey asked to meet with her. At that meeting, she was told that a decision had been made to terminate her employment.

The reason given was health and safety issues arising out of her having a baby on the farm. Confirmation of the dismissal was then given by letter dated 20 February 2024.

The timing mattered. Ms Butler-Smith was due to return from parental leave on 19 February 2024. Instead of a proper return-to-work discussion, consultation, or an assessment of practical arrangements, she was told that her employment was over.

The respondent did not attend the ERA investigation meeting

The investigation meeting was held by AVL on 26 March 2026. The Partnership did not attend and did not engage in the Authority's investigation.

The Authority considered whether to proceed in the Partnership's absence. It was clear from the Authority's file that the Partnership was aware of the proceedings. The Authority adjourned the start of the investigation meeting for about 15 minutes to give the Partnership an opportunity to contact the Authority if it had been unable to join the AVL meeting. No contact was made.

The Authority then proceeded. Ms Butler-Smith gave evidence and had also filed a written brief of evidence. Because the Partnership did not attend, it did not give evidence, cross-examine, or provide an explanation for the dismissal.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

Ms Butler-Smith claimed that her dismissal was unjustified. She gave evidence that the dismissal had a significant emotional effect on her. She was a first-time mother, had expected to have a job to return to, and said the dismissal placed her under emotional and financial pressure.

The ERA found the dismissal unjustified. The reasoning was direct. The Partnership was not there to justify or explain its actions. There had been no consultation with Ms Butler-Smith. There was simply a blunt assessment that she could not bring a baby onto the farm because it would be unsafe.

The Authority said there had been no opportunity to explore the validity of that conclusion or to look at alternatives. Ms Butler-Smith's evidence about hurt and humiliation was accepted as poignant. The ERA accepted that the unexpected termination of her employment affected her while she was in a vulnerable state.

No contribution reduction

Under section 124 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Authority had to consider whether Ms Butler-Smith contributed to the situation in a way that should reduce remedies. The ERA found that she did not.

There was no finding that Ms Butler-Smith did anything blameworthy. No contribution reduction was made.

Unpaid work, lost wages, and notice pay

The Authority accepted Ms Butler-Smith's evidence about amounts owing. She had requested wage, time, and leave records, but the Partnership had not provided them. In those circumstances, and with no contrary evidence from the Partnership, the Authority accepted her calculations.

The ERA ordered the Partnership to pay:

• $192: for two hours per month for four months when Ms Butler-Smith attended the workplace but was unpaid.
• $9,360: for the 13 weeks Ms Butler-Smith remained unemployed after dismissal, based on 30 hours per week at $24 per hour.
• $2,880: for the four-week notice period provided for in her employment agreement but not honoured by the Partnership.

Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings

Ms Butler-Smith claimed $25,000 compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. She described the emotional and financial effect of the dismissal. She had expected to return to her job after parental leave and gave evidence about the impact on her wellbeing and parenting experience.

The ERA awarded $20,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. The Authority accepted that the dismissal had a significant effect on her, particularly given the timing and her vulnerable position as a first-time mother returning from parental leave.

No penalty imposed for records issue

Ms Butler-Smith also sought a penalty for the Partnership's failure to provide wage, time, and leave records. The Authority recorded that the Partnership had not appeared. In those circumstances, the Authority was reluctant to impose a penalty without further explanation.

That meant Ms Butler-Smith succeeded on the money claims and dismissal remedies, but no penalty was imposed for the record keeping issue.

Why this case matters

This case is a straightforward but important reminder about return from parental leave. An employee who goes on parental leave does not lose the right to fair treatment, consultation, and a proper process before dismissal. If an employer thinks there is a genuine health and safety issue with a proposed return-to-work arrangement, the answer is not an ambush dismissal.

The employer needed to discuss the concern, explain the basis for it, consider the employee's response, and look at practical alternatives. That might include different duties, different hours, different arrangements for childcare or attendance, or any other workable steps depending on the facts. The employer did not show that it did that.

The case also shows the risk of not attending the Authority's investigation meeting. The applicant still needs to prove the claim, but if the employer does not attend, it loses the opportunity to give evidence, explain its decision, challenge the applicant's account, or justify its process.

Practical takeaways

• Parental leave return needs care: an employee due to return from parental leave should be dealt with properly and fairly.
• Health and safety is not a shortcut: a safety concern still needs evidence, consultation, and consideration of alternatives.
• Do not make the decision first: telling an employee that termination has already been decided is strong evidence of a flawed process.
• Consultation must be real: the employee should be told the concern and given a genuine chance to respond.
• Alternatives matter: before dismissal, a fair employer should consider whether practical arrangements could deal with the concern.
• Notice clauses must be honoured: if an employment agreement provides for four weeks notice, the employer needs to comply or pay in lieu where lawful.
• Unpaid work is still work: small amounts of unpaid work can still be claimed and ordered.
• Records matter: failing to provide wage, time, and leave records can leave the Authority more willing to accept the employee's calculations.
• Attend the ERA meeting: not attending makes it much harder for an employer to defend a claim.
• Compensation can be significant: dismissing a vulnerable employee in a blunt and unfair way can support a substantial injury to feelings award.

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.