The discussion turned into an argument where Knight and Tan - also the CEO of the resort’s parent company, Gorges Jade Holdings - allegedly shouted at each other.
She and another staff member left the room and later, Knight emailed Tan and other staff to apologise for leaving the meeting, saying she was upset and had to get away.
Six days later, Knight emailed Tan suggesting some wine sales opportunities.
Tan replied the same day, requesting she attend a meeting the next morning at 10am to “address your behaviour at last week’s meeting”, and invited her to bring a support person if she wished.
Knight replied saying she could not find a support person at short notice, and asked to reschedule the meeting.
Tan said no, the meeting will not be rescheduled and she was required to attend so he could assess her fitness to join a staff meeting the following day.
Knight did not attend either meeting.
Nearly a week later on February 28, Knight was working as the cellar door salesperson by the restaurant when she noticed there was no licensed manager on duty.
She said she took down the sign displaying the name of the licensed manager, then told the restaurant manager Jurgens De La Ray that they could not sell wine until they had a licensed manager on the premises.
De La Ray said Knight walked abruptly to the front of the winery restaurant and took down the sign before telling restaurant staff they could be prosecuted for selling alcohol.
He took her back to the cellar to discuss, which soon turned into a heated argument.
De La Ray said Knight was shouting at him, would not leave despite repeated requests, and this happened in view of some customers and staff.
There were about 50 customers having lunch in the restaurant at the time.
The same day, Knight received an email from resort boss Tan saying she was suspended for her behaviour at the February 17 meeting.
The email was copied to the company’s Head of Winery Allan Collinson as well as Knight’s father, a wine supplier for the resort.
Knight said the email was deeply upsetting and humiliating and felt it breached her privacy.
On March 17, a disciplinary meeting between Knight, her lawyer and Tan saw the parties disagree with each other’s version of events and the meeting ended in 15 minutes.
The following day, Tan sent Knight a letter with the header “Dismissal without notice”, saying she was fired for serious misconduct.
‘Fundamentally unfair’
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found Knight’s dismissal was unjustified because the resort could not reasonably conclude there was serious misconduct.
The dismissal was also done “in a fundamentally unfair way”, said ERA member Andrew Gane.
In a decision dated December 22, 2022, Gane said Carrington Resort failed all four minimum procedural fairness tests employers are required to comply with before dismissing the employee - sufficiently investigating the allegations, raising the disciplinary concerns with the employee, giving the employee reasonable opportunity to respond to the disciplinary concerns, and genuinely considering the employee’s explanation.
Gane said specific allegations were not formulated, and staff concerns about Knight’s behaviour were not adequately put to her.
“Tan did not provide any written witness statements of staff he claimed to have interviewed,” he said, and Knight was asked to respond to verbal allegations without the information she needed, which was a breach of natural justice requirements.
Knight said Tan’s comments and the way she was treated at Carrington Resort was humiliating, derogatory and caused her financial hardship.
However, the Authority found her unprofessional behaviour at the restaurant blameworthy and cut her compensation by 25 per cent.
Carrington Resort was ordered to pay Knight three months salary of $12,500, compensation of $15,000 for unjustified dismissal, $3750 for the suspension and other costs - totalling $34,969.45 after reduction, plus interest.
Knight told NZME she felt vindicated by the outcome.
Speaking through her lawyer Richard Mark, she said she only pursued the grievance to ensure others were not treated in the same way by Carrington Resort.
Asked to comment, Tan said he believed the decision was unfair and the ERA biased against employers.
Tan said he is appealing both this case and the one involving the former restaurant manager.
