A sloppy sacking turned one offensive remark into Bidfood’s $35,000 bill

An HR manager sacked over a ‘typical Asian’ remark has been awarded $35,000 by the Employment Relations Authority, after it found serious flaws in how foodservice distributor Bidfood ran the dismissal. Most employers would read the remark and assume the case was open and shut. It was not, and that is the point every business owner should take from it. The Authority does not mainly judge whether the employee deserved to go. It judges whether the employer earned the right to let them go.

Same company, opposite result

What makes this case useful is that Bidfood got it right less than a fortnight earlier. On 11 October the Authority issued its determination in Cunard v Bidfood, where a delivery driver was dismissed for serious misconduct after 13 at-fault truck incidents in under two years, plus allegations about medication disclosure.

Bidfood won that one comfortably. Authority member Antoinette Baker found the company had clearly put its concerns to the driver, given her a genuine chance to respond, and properly considered her explanation. Earlier warnings and a training record counted in Bidfood’s favour. Her claims about long hours and unfamiliar routes failed because the company’s records showed no unlawful hours and the route sat within her licence class.

One dismissal was backed by paperwork, warnings and a real right of reply. The other, according to the Authority, had serious process flaws. The reporting so far does not detail exactly which steps went wrong, and employers should not guess. But the pattern is plain enough: an offensive comment is easier to defend a dismissal over than a dangerous driving record, yet it was the comment case that cost money.

The irony that the employee was an HR manager, the person usually responsible for running these processes, will not be lost on anyone.

The courts have been saying this for decades

None of this is new. Back in 2003, the Authority ordered Hamilton firm Provida Foods to pay $10,100 to one worker and $2,000 to another sacked over offensive emails. The then Authority member found the emails were ‘in very poor taste and likely to give offence’, but the company had made ‘no attempt to meet basic fairness requirements’, including refusing to show one worker the emails she was accused of sending.

In 2023, Sherridan Cook, then a Buddle Findlay partner, warned that in the Employment Court ‘every little bit of the employer’s process is examined, and often found to be wanting’, adding that there was ‘never a lessening’ of what employers had to do. In 2025, Rachael Judge, then a Simpson Grierson partner, said investigations were becoming ‘increasingly litigious and difficult to execute properly’, and that even hiring an outside investigator did not let employers off the hook for oversight.

The bills keep arriving. In March 2026, two chefs sacked from Buoy Cafe won a combined payout of roughly $95,448. Employment lawyer Shelley Eden called it ‘a catastrophic failure by the employer to follow any employment dispute process’ and predicted that with redundancies rising, ‘we are going to see claims at this level and higher’.

Reform helps, but it is not a get-out clause

Employers have had some genuine wins on the law. In 2024, Cabinet agreed to amend the Employment Relations Act to remove remedies where serious misconduct is found, strip hurt-feelings compensation where the employee contributed to the problem, allow remedies to be cut by up to 100 percent, and drop the word ‘minor’ from the test for process defects that did not cause unfair treatment. The Cunard determination notes the Authority applied the contribution rules as they stood before the 2026 amendments, confirming the changes have since landed.

That is a sensible rebalancing. Employees who behave badly should not walk away with windfalls. But the reform forgives technical slips, not serious ones. A process the Authority considers seriously flawed still sinks the employer, and the Bidfood ruling shows it.

The volume of disputes makes this a live risk, not a theoretical one. In 2024, applications to the Authority rose 22 percent to 2,745, with unjustified dismissal the dominant category and compensation awards ranging from $700 to $105,000. Bidfood’s $35,000 sits mid-range. That is a meaningful cost for a case the company might have won on the facts.

What employers should actually do

The official guidance has not changed: disciplinary action must be fair and reasonable, which means a good reason and a fair process before any decision. In practice, Cunard is the template. Put the specific allegations in writing. Give the employee the evidence and a real chance to answer. Genuinely consider the response, and record that you did. Keep the warning and training trail. Do not decide the outcome before the meeting.

The instinct when someone says something ugly is to move fast and get them out. That instinct is expensive. With the Authority’s caseload climbing and lawyers expecting bigger claims, the employers who come out ahead will be the ones who treat even the most obvious sacking as if a member of the Authority will read every email. Because increasingly, one will.

Sources

• Stuff: HR manager sacked over ‘typical Asian’ remark awarded $35,000 (2026-10-23)
• ELDP: Julia Faye Cunard v Bidfood Ltd – [2026] NZERA 752 (2026-10-11)
• NZ Herald: Mixed sequels to offensive workplace messages (2003-12-09)
• Human Resources Director: Discipline and termination, lessons from the Employment Court (2023-10-25)
• BusinessDesk: Employment investigations becoming increasingly difficult to get right (2025-02-20)
• The Post: Chefs win six-figure payout after catastrophic failure by employer to follow due process (2026-03-02)
• Employment Relations Authority: Annual Report 2024 (2025-05-26)
• Employment New Zealand: Disciplinary process