Confidentiality fears do not switch off the right to know the case against you
A North Island tractor dealership must pay a former Waikato sales manager four months' wages plus $19,360 after sacking him for serious misconduct over four complaints he was never shown.
In Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273, issued on 4 May 2026, Authority Member Helen van Druten found Brandt Tractor Limited unjustifiably dismissed Nicholas Pilcher and unjustifiably disadvantaged him by pulling him out of the workplace without a fair process. For HR teams in New Zealand, the ruling sharpens a familiar line: protecting nervous complainants does not switch off the duty to tell an accused employee what they are answering.
Pilcher joined Agrowquip NZ Ltd on 28 October 2020 and continued with Brandt after it acquired the business in January 2023. He stepped up to Sales Manager in August 2023. According to the determination, an earlier complaint from a colleague (anonymised as MJP) on 16 January 2024 led to a Performance Improvement Plan rather than a warning. Four more complaints landed between 28 March and 3 April 2024, alleging "passive aggressive behaviour, unpredictable mood swings and sexual descriptors and comments about colleagues." On 17 April, Brandt handed Pilcher a letter offering special leave while it investigated, and his phone and laptop were taken. Five days later, on 22 April 2024, he was told in a carpark that he was dismissed for serious misconduct, effective immediately. Pilcher denies all allegations made in the complaints.
The Authority found the 17 April removal was a "suspension in all but name." Taking Pilcher's phone and laptop at the time he was given the letter meant that in reality there was no choice to make about leave or suspension. There was no immediate safety risk that justified going around him. The fourth complaint had landed on 3 April and Pilcher had stayed in the workplace until 17 April. The handover also happened in an office with glass windows in front of his team. Brandt says it had safety obligations to its other employees and an obligation to remove that risk, but the Authority found the process was deficient and unjustifiably disadvantaged Pilcher.
Brandt initially intended to fully investigate the allegations using an independent investigator. That approach changed. Chief personnel officer Graeme Taylor, based in Canada, became the decision-maker and did not speak to Pilcher about the allegations. The two named investigators, line manager Dean Smith and HR advisor Karen Harvey, were unavailable as witnesses at the Authority. Other than Taylor's review and Harvey's conversations with the complainants, no internal or external investigation occurred. The Authority noted Pilcher had been with the Brandt business for over 12 months prior to any documented complaint, and said "the short timeframe is highly unusual and Brandt owed Mr Pilcher to investigate that possibility." Pilcher's employment agreement treats sexual harassment or bullying as serious misconduct, while harassment of other employees on personal issues is treated as misconduct. Brandt's harassment policy states that "the harasser will be disciplined appropriately. Discipline may range from a verbal reprimand to suspension or dismissal." Pilcher was dismissed knowing only the general nature of the complaints. He was not given copies, redacted or otherwise, leaving him only able to offer a bare denial.
Brandt's reason for holding back the complaints was the complainants' fear of retaliation. The Authority found no evidence of a pattern or history of retaliatory action by Pilcher. Inappropriate text messages received by two employees were never definitively linked to him and were never discussed with him, but formed part of what Brandt relied on to substantiate the new allegations. Van Druten wrote that the concern "must be managed and cannot automatically override the employer's obligation to treat its employees fairly and, in particular, give them the proper opportunity to understand the detail and extent of the allegations against them in order that they can fully and frankly respond. It advantages no one if an unsatisfactory investigation results in an unsafe dismissal."
There was a sting after the dismissal too. Vice-president of operations New Zealand Stuart Drew contacted a Waikato business owner in early 2025 and advised Pilcher was not permitted on Brandt sites. Pilcher was not offered the position. While the Authority accepted Drew was not malicious, it found this was "unnecessary interference in Mr Pilcher's job-hunting efforts and undertaken without the full information, to Mr Pilcher's detriment."
Brandt was ordered to pay four months' lost remuneration plus annual leave for that period, and $19,360 compensation. The starting point was $22,000, reduced by 12 percent because Pilcher had declined mediation with MJP, claimed the PIP was unjustified, and rejected the support Brandt offered as criticism. The Authority said he "must take some responsibility for his contribution to the working environment within his team." Pilcher's earlier disadvantage claim relating to the Performance Improvement Plan was unsuccessful, and the Authority declined to impose a penalty for any breach of good faith. The allegations in the four complaints were not tested in a full investigation by Brandt and remain unproven; Pilcher denies them.
