Farm thefts, a cottage eviction and a single text message, but the dismissal claim still failed
A dairy farm worker sacked by text after farm thefts lost her unjustified dismissal claim, Authority member Helen van Druten ruled on 6 May 2026.
Emelza Winters had worked at RSK Farming Limited's Waikato dairy farm as Farm Manager, resigning in 2023 after an injury. In mid-2024 she contacted Rupinder Singh-Heer, who part-owns and works on the farm, about coming back, and returned as a Farm Assistant, starting on a couple of hours a day and building up as her injury allowed.
Things unravelled in late November 2024. After another employee's vehicle was stolen, Singh-Heer phoned Winters and accused her of taking it, also raising the theft of a quad bike. Days later, on 29 November, she received a text telling her to clear her belongings out of the cottage she lived in on the property. According to that message, she was also "not fit nor healthy to fulfil the requirements of me farm". Singh-Heer later described it as a "go away" text, and accepts he ended her employment by text and without any meeting.
Winters argued she was a permanent employee who had been unjustifiably dismissed, pointing to her consistent work pattern and a mutual expectation of ongoing work. She also sought penalties over RSK's failure to give her a written employment agreement or proper wage and time records, in breach of sections 65 and 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Working through the factors set out in Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Limited, van Druten found in Winters v RSK Farming Limited [2026] NZERA 282 that Winters was a casual employee in 2024, not a permanent one. Her hours swung between 23 and 50 a week, there was no set roster, and the text messages pointed to work coming up as the farm needed it. Because each day was treated as a separate engagement and the dismissal text landed on a day Winters was not working, there was no mutual obligation in place, and the unjustified dismissal claim was declined. Her unjustified disadvantage claim also failed.
The decision was not all in RSK's favour. Van Druten found the farm had breached its good faith duty by never telling Winters that the theft concerns were affecting whether it would keep offering her work, leaving her to think all was well. But she was not satisfied the breach was deliberate or intended to undermine the relationship, so no penalty followed.
The paperwork was a different story. The parties agreed no written agreement was signed when Winters returned in July 2024. Singh-Heer said he had repeatedly asked her to sign one but could produce no evidence of it, and van Druten concluded RSK had breached section 65. RSK had also failed to keep wage and time records for the work Winters did before 10 October 2024, breaching section 130. Van Druten ordered RSK to pay a $750 penalty to Winters for the agreement breach and a $500 penalty to the Crown for the records breach.
Singh-Heer blamed the ongoing thefts on others living at the cottage and said he wanted those associated with the problems off the property. On the dismissal itself, van Druten found there was "no evidence that she was personally responsible for the thefts on the farm", though, living at the cottage, she was held responsible along with others for the ongoing problems with the farm's equipment and supplies.
