He was pursued through the office and out of the building by Edney and the pair argued before the manager all but told Ede he was suspended.
An email confirming the suspension said a preliminary investigation would be carried out, but Beck found this did not happen.
A meeting was held between Ede, Edney and two other company directors six days later.
Beck was unhappy Edney was involved in the disciplinary process, and also said the general manager "should have more carefully analysed his contribution" to the "confrontation".
Edney defended his decision to follow Ede, claiming he wanted to ensure he "left safely as there were other employees working in the office he had to pass through to get out".
During the March 19 meeting, Ede apologised for his actions, but the company directors thought this was insincere and "there was a high likelihood that this type of behaviour could happen again".
They later reconvened and decided to fire Ede, failing to discuss any other form of disciplinary action.
Beck concluded it was not "fair and reasonable" to dismiss Ede and his behaviour could "only be fairly deemed to be at best misconduct warranting perhaps a written warning with some attached conditions".
Ede was unable to find alternative employment until September and thus lost $32,307.
His counsel sought $40,000 in compensation, but Beck felt $25,000 was more appropriate.
The Employment Relations Authority member then reduced the sums by 10 per cent for events that led up to the dismissal, which included outbursts by Ede at a female colleague and a customer in February, and decided the company should pay $29,077 gross for lost wages and $22,500 compensation.
Ede had justified his transgressions as down to workload stress, personality clashes and being out of character.
