King had not been satisfied with how he was being treated and signalled an intention to resign but was then dismissed, ERA member David Beck’s decision said.

Beck’s assessment of the evidence found the final warning was unjustified and given it impacted on King’s sense of job security “he has suffered a detriment”.

“The way the warning was administered was not an action of a fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances.”

Beck said King was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the warning.

Kaamadhenu had breached both a duty of good faith and obligation to provide a safe work environment by not properly investigating the concerns raised by King about his work environment and how it was impacting upon his wellbeing, he said.

“I find, given the references to Mr King’s health in text exchanges, that Kaamadhenu were aware Mr King was struggling with stress.”

Beck also said how Kaamadhenu approached both the warning letter and the setting up of a meeting had breached obligations owed to King and unnecessarily exacerbated his anxiety about his job security.

“The poor setting up of the … meeting with some random attendees was sadly farcical if it was intended to reassure Mr King of his employer’s ongoing confidence in him and a willingness to address his concerns. The meeting was not properly documented and I am unable to conclude exactly what options were put to Mr King.”

Beck said the correct and reasonable approach would have been to properly, and from an independent perspective, investigate and resolve the issues King was experiencing with his co-worker.

“Rather than seeking to just shift the problem by moving employees around farms and disrupting their lives, including accommodation/schooling options, Kaamadhenu should have sought to review the dynamics of the operation they had imposed and ascertain if Mr King’s concerns had validity or even whether Mr King was the source of his own issues.

“Instead, by the point of the dismissal it was apparent that the focus had inappropriately shifted to Mr King’s wellbeing and performance issues.”

Beck said that Kaamadhenu’s handling of the situation, including communications with him, fell well short of what could be expected of a fair and reasonable employer.

“This is particularly so when they were aware of Mr King being unwell and distressed. Mr King was objectively a vulnerable employee.

“While I accept the circumstances of Mr King’s resignation could have led Kaamadhenu to doubt his intentions, the communication thereafter was poor and lacked a proper level of formality.

“The subsequent decision to dismiss Mr King was unjustified and causative of additional distress. Quite simply put, Kaamadhenu’s failure of communication and adherence to due process, led to the dilemma they found themselves in.

“I find the dismissal was in all of the circumstances, unjustified.”

Beck said the impact of the final warning and dismissal was “prolonged” and had caused King to suffer insecurity and worry that he was unable to cope with and included evidence from his partner that it had spilled over to causing tension in his family relationship.

“This also impacted Mr King’s emotional wellbeing and manifested itself in physical stress symptoms (supported by a GP certificate).”

Beck believed King was “a proud person who was and is succeeding in an industry he had little experience in and he wanted to provide for his family in a new country and unfamiliar rural environment so he tried to cope with pressures without help and that may have been to his further detriment”.

Beck did find King had a level of contribution to the circumstances of the first personal grievance when he arrived at work late, dishevelled and likely smelling of alcohol.

“A fair and proper process may well have still resulted in Mr King receiving a warning of some degree.”

Beck then reduced the $25,000 compensation by 10% to $22,500, but awarded $3589.77 for lost wages. Costs were reserved.