Manager claims work far exceeded contract but employer disputes hours
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a case involving a farm manager who claimed he was unjustifiably disadvantaged by being required to work significantly more hours than his contract specified, raising important questions about employer obligations when job demands exceed agreed terms.
The worker argued that despite his 45-hour weekly contract, the practical realities of managing a hunting lodge business required him to work thousands of additional hours without pay.
He maintained that his employer failed to provide adequate support or address his concerns about excessive workload, ultimately forcing him to resign from what he described as his "dream job."
The employer defended against the claims, arguing that the worker had control over his workload through booking management responsibilities and was not required to work the additional hours he claimed. The company maintained that any extra work was the worker's choice and that they had provided appropriate support throughout the employment relationship.
The worker had been employed as a farm manager at a Central North Island property from February 2021 until March 2024. His role included general farm duties as well as organising clients for the hunting lodge business, which represented 30 percent of his responsibilities.
The employment agreement specified that "the employee will work for 45 hours each week on Monday to Sunday, between the hours of 7am and 5pm" with a salary that "covers all the time worked."
However, the worker provided detailed diary records showing he worked an additional 4,022.5 hours above his contracted hours over the employment period. His personal diaries for 2021-2024 recorded daily work activities extending well beyond the contracted 45 hours per week.
The ERA found these records credible, stating that "their brevity supports the likelihood that they were written at the time the work was undertaken."
The hunting business had grown substantially during the worker's tenure, from around 25-30 international hunts per year to "several hundred hunts per year."
The worker became "fully involved in the hosting of clients including client airport pickup, providing meals, hosting, hunt preparation and cleaning, guiding on hunts and cleaning the lodge between clients." The ERA noted this represented "a significant workload increase" that contributed to the excessive hours.
The employment relationship had begun as a collaboration between friends, but this friendship initially masked problems with role definition. The ERA found that "the high level of trust between the parties and their friendship meant that there was less discussion about the detail of the role than there might otherwise have been." A significant mismatch emerged between what each party understood as the scope of the role.
The relationship deteriorated significantly from 2022 onwards when the primary manager became unable to provide on-site support due to health issues. In February 2023, the worker was told the manager "would be based in Auckland and unable to help with hunts." This left the worker with "sole responsibility for managing hunts booked that were planned in reliance on [the manager's] assistance."
The worker had formally raised concerns about his workload on 19 December 2022, requesting additional help, but the employer failed to provide adequate support.
Management was transferred to a family member based in Auckland, but the ERA found that "for most of 2023, [the worker] had email support only from his employer." This created an isolating work environment for someone who "preferred communicating by text and in person."
The ERA applied the test of justification under the Employment Relations Act 2000, examining whether the employer's actions were what "a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances." The Authority found that while the employer did not directly require the additional hours, they failed to provide adequate support when circumstances changed.
The ERA determined: "It was reasonably foreseeable in an isolated, sole charge, rural location with a growing workload, that the lack of support and direction provided to [the worker] from early 2022 onwards was not that of a fair and reasonable employer in those circumstances."
The Authority noted the employer could have taken reasonable steps such as providing additional support or assisting with planning and bookings.
The Authority found that "[the employer] was obliged to treat [the worker] fairly and reasonably and comply with the obligation of good faith which requires parties to employment relationships to be active and constructive and responsive and communicative."
The ERA concluded that the employer had failed to meet these standards, particularly given the worker's isolated working conditions and increasing responsibilities.
While finding in favour of the worker's unjustified disadvantage claim, the ERA also considered his contribution to the situation. The Authority noted: "Early on in his employment [the worker] never raised his concerns in any robust way with any of the [employer's] family before he was really struggling in December 2022."
The ERA found that the worker "contributed to his situation by not raising issues more formally early on and failing to follow the dispute resolution process in his employment agreement. Ultimately, he walked off the job and left [the employer] with hunts booked, [the manager] away, nobody to guide, commercial loss and a lodge to manage." This contributory conduct resulted in a 20 percent reduction of the compensation award.
The Authority ordered compensation of $17,000 but reduced this to $13,600, explaining: "This also acknowledges that [the worker] walked off the job without notice and he must bear the consequences of his contribution to the situation in which he found himself."
The ERA found that the worker was entitled to compensation under multiple categories. For the unjustified disadvantage claim, the Authority ordered: "$13,600.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to the feelings of [the worker]."
The decision acknowledged the significant personal impact on the worker and his family. Regarding wage arrears, the ERA ordered: "$39,832.30 (less tax) equating to 1814 hours of wage arrears" for work performed in 2022 and 2023 that took the worker's effective hourly rate below minimum wage requirements.
The Authority dismissed claims for 2021, finding the working relationship was sufficiently positive that year for concerns to have been raised directly.
The ERA also awarded: "$1,730.77 (less tax) for payment of 4 alternate days and T0.5 for those days" relating to public holidays worked with employer agreement but not properly compensated. The total award exceeded $55,000, representing a significant financial consequence for the employer's failure to properly manage the employment relationship and comply with minimum employment standards.
