A candy cane, a racial remark, and a disciplinary process that fell apart
Bidfood's HR manager made a racial remark at work - then the company's own disciplinary process fell apart.
The worker had been with Bidfood Limited, New Zealand's largest foodservice wholesaler, for more than eight years when things unravelled in May 2025. She held a dual role as Human Resources Manager and Health and Safety Manager at the company's Hawkes Bay branch - a senior position that came with high expectations around workplace conduct.
The months before the incident had not been easy. After a back injury left her certified for just 20 hours a week and relying on a walking cane, she recalled being mocked by colleagues for her slow walking speed. At Christmas, someone gave her a candy cane. She found it humiliating, but said nothing came of it - management treated it as acceptable.
By May 2025, she had recovered enough to return to full-time work. Then came the comment that started it all.
During a conversation about coffee with a manager at another branch - someone she described as a friend - the worker called him a "typical Asian," or possibly a "typical bloody Asian." Both versions were put to her. She did not think anyone else was listening. Two other people in the office were. Both lodged complaints on the grounds the language was inappropriate and racist. The manager she was speaking to never complained.
A process that kept growing
Bidfood moved quickly. On May 20, 2025, it issued a formal letter inviting the worker to an investigation meeting, flagging possible breaches of its code of conduct and harassment and discrimination policy. A written warning was noted as a potential outcome. The worker was asked - in writing and in person - to keep the matter confidential.
She did not.
The worker accepted she had told two colleagues about the process - one after being asked if she was alright, and another in a more detailed conversation in her office. She also accepted that her son, who worked at Bidfood and lived with her, appeared to have overheard her discussing the matter with her partner at home. He had then been raising concerns about it at work.
The most contested breach involved a phone call the worker made to the colleague she had originally commented about. Her account was that a Bidfood HR business partner had told her during the investigation meeting to "check in on" the manager and make sure he was alright. She made the call from her own office, where the HR business partner happened to be working that same day.
Bidfood saw it as yet another confidentiality breach. The HR business partner strongly disputed that she had ever told the worker to make the call. Her account was that she had been prompting the worker to reflect on the impact of her words on others - particularly after the worker had indicated she would not stop making such comments but would "keep it in the office from now on," or words to that effect.
A third issue surfaced around a separate comment the worker allegedly made in the workplace, referencing a "porn video." The worker said she had been responding to repeated rumours directed at her and was defending herself. Bidfood accepted this allegation was vague and disputed, and did not pursue it.
Three sets of allegations, one letter
By the end of the process, the worker had faced three different sets of allegations, introduced at different stages and in different documents. Some were said to carry the potential for a written warning. Others were said to carry the potential for dismissal. One was dropped entirely.
On May 29, 2025, Bidfood wrote to the worker setting out its findings: that the comment was "racially charged, offensive, and highly inappropriate," that she had failed to follow a direct and reasonable instruction to keep the process confidential, and that as a senior staff member with HR responsibilities, she had failed to meet the behavioural standards expected of her. Bidfood's preliminary view was that her employment should be terminated.
On June 5, 2025, the dismissal was confirmed. The letter cited "the cumulative impact of your actions."
Where the process broke down
The Employment Relations Authority, in a decision issued on October 20, 2026, found Bidfood had mixed up two things that should have been kept separate: working out what happened, and deciding what to do about it.
The worker took part in an investigation meeting. She was never given a chance to comment on the investigation's findings before they were treated as settled. She was never given a separate opportunity to address whether she should face disciplinary action at all. Her only chance to respond came after the decision-maker had already formed a preliminary view that dismissal was the right outcome.
That decision-maker - the company's General Manager for the region - never met with the worker directly. He made his decision based on the investigation report. But his own evidence revealed he had also been receiving ongoing input from the HR business partner and another manager throughout the process, including on both his preliminary and final decisions to dismiss. This was not disclosed to the worker at the time.
The Authority found this confusion of roles significant. It was inconsistent with the integrity of the process Bidfood had said it was running.
The Authority also found it "inherently unfair" that Bidfood kept adding allegations during the investigation and then changed the potential consequences at the end. The failures, the Authority held, were more than minor. They denied the worker a genuine opportunity to persuade the decision-maker as to the appropriate outcome.
The dismissal was found unjustified.
Not a clean result for either side
The finding did not let the worker off the hook. The Authority accepted that she had repeatedly failed to keep the process confidential, even after being reminded of her obligations both in writing and verbally. Her compensation was reduced by 15% for her own part in what happened.
The worker described the personal toll of the dismissal - shock, financial hardship, a need for medical help, and having to ask her 17-year-old son for help paying bills. She had also been forced to stop rehabilitation for her back injury because she could no longer afford it.
The Authority awarded $20,000 for hurt and humiliation, and $20,625 gross for three months' lost wages. After the 15% reduction, the final orders came to $17,000 (without deduction) and $17,531.25 gross respectively. A claim for additional lost wages beyond the three-month period was declined, given limited evidence of job-search efforts.
For HR teams designing or reviewing their own disciplinary processes, the case is a practical lesson: a defensible reason to dismiss can still fail if the process that gets you there mixes up who decides what, adds charges mid-stream, and never gives the employee a proper chance to respond to the disciplinary question as distinct from the factual one.
