When communication in the workplace breaks down, so does trust – and, ultimately, compliance with the law – just one of the lessons from a recent Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision: Thomas v Scott [2025] NZERA 592.
Background
Benjamin Thomas was employed as a Senior Dairy Assistant by Matthew and Patricia Scott, trading as Infinity Dairy in South Canterbury. As part of his role, he lived in on-farm accommodation and disclosed from the outset that he had autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and a prescription for medicinal cannabis. The employer raised no objections at the time.
Over the course of his employment, Mr Thomas raised concerns about pay deductions, tenancy issues, and aspects of his employment agreement. Despite his repeated efforts to resolve these matters, his communications went unanswered.
The Suspension
In April 2024, Mr Thomas was unexpectedly suspended on full pay for unspecified “health and safety risks.” No explanation or evidence was provided, and no investigation followed. A day later, the employer suggested the suspension related to Mr Thomas’s medicinal cannabis use – even though this had been disclosed and supported by a medical certificate confirming no impairment risk. In early May 2024, Mr Thomas was advised he was subject to disciplinary action for the use of medicinal cannabis and he would remain on paid suspended leave.
No further contact was made. For more than three months, Mr Thomas heard nothing from his employer or their legal representatives, despite him and his representative seeking to communicate. Eventually, he resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.
ERA’s Findings
The ERA found that Infinity Dairy had:
- Unjustifiably suspended Mr Thomas without lawful or procedural justification.
- Breached its duty of good faith under section 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by failing to communicate or engage.
- Constructively dismissed the employee through conduct that made continued employment untenable.
The Authority emphasised that a fair and reasonable employer would not suspend without clear grounds or ignore an employee seeking updates about their employment status.
Remedies Awarded
The ERA ordered Infinity Dairy to pay Mr Thomas lost wages for three months ($3,545.75) being the difference between what he would have earnt; and $30,000 for compensation.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Good faith requires action, not silence.
Failing to engage or respond breaches statutory obligations and can give rise to a personal grievance. - Suspension demands clear process and reason.
Vague references to “health and safety” without evidence or communication will not withstand scrutiny. If you are intending to suspend an employee you need to specify why, on clear grounds, and work through a process to propose suspension. - Pre-disclosed medical or disability information cannot be retroactively weaponised.
Transparency from employees must be met with understanding, not punitive action.
If you are concerned about medicinal cannabis use, as appears to be a growing area, you should seek to understand what (if any) medications are being taken by prospective employees that could have an impact on their ability to perform their role in advance of offering employment which you can do through the use of a pre-employment application form.
Alternatively any role could be offered with pre-employment testing obligations if necessary.
If an existing employee notifies you of their intention to begin using medicinal cannabis, you should first refer to your organisation’s health and safety, or drug and alcohol policies. The nature of the employee’s role, particularly whether it is safety-sensitive, must also be carefully considered. This can be a complex area of law, as standard drug tests only detect the presence of substances, not the level of impairment. As a result, determining whether an employee is impaired at work, and to what extent, can be challenging for employers.
- Process matters as much as outcome. Even if a concern were legitimate, procedural unfairness will likely render any disciplinary action unjustified.
The Broader Message
Thomas v Scott reinforces that employment relationships rest on communication, consistency, and good faith. When those foundations fail, liability follows.
In this case, a complete absence of communication was treated as a breach so serious it destroyed the employment relationship.
For employers, the message is simple: silence is never a safe strategy.
Need to update your staff letters of offer with pre-employment conditions? Or looking for a comprehensive pre-employment application form? We’re here to help!
We also offer expert reviews of your Drug and Alcohol Policies and Health and Safety Policies to ensure they’re up-to-date and compliant.
👉 Get in touch today to streamline your hiring process and strengthen your workplace policies. Email admin@cmalaw.co.nz