Issues with Dowling’s employment first arose when Phillipa Sims claimed she found him incorrectly carrying out a routine plant wash procedure in the milking shed on January 26 last year.
Days later, an adverse grading result came back. Nathan Sims asked Dowling if he had “sucked shit up”, which he denied.
A “fractious” conversation ensued, which resulted in Dowling telling Sims he had been recording the conversation.
Soon after, Phillipa Sims gave Dowling a letter, inviting him to a meeting to discuss the concerns around the plant wash procedure.
The letter noted the potential for disciplinary action, and the authority ruled the process to this point was sound.
The employers said they hoped to resolve matters, but they expressed frustration at the blanket denials of wrongdoing by Dowling.
“Dowling did not react well to the letter,” the authority said.
He sent a quick succession of emails and text messages to the Sims, alleging they had predetermined the outcome of the meeting after finding out about the recording, and had relied on “false information”.
He told the pair he hoped they had a decent lawyer.
“The Sims kept their written communication professional - unsuccessfully encouraging Mr Dowling to bring his concerns to their meeting two days later,” the decision said.
On the same day, Nathan Sims said Dowling approached him in the cowshed in a threatening manner.
Sims said Dowling laughed at him, held his phone up, giving the impression he was recording, and threatened that no big dairy companies would work with the farm when he uploaded photos he had taken to social media.
The authority said it was more likely than not that Dowling became antagonistic.
Sims told Dowling to go home, but he refused. Sims left the cowshed, later telling the authority he felt deliberately baited.
“No recording of the behaviour described by Mr Sims surfaced - this was despite Mr Dowling admitting holding his phone up as if recording Mr Sims,” the authority said.
Dowling told the authority he was only pretending to record, but admitted he was attempting to make Sims “blow out”. He was upset and standing up for himself, he said. The authority said he was remorseful.
Later in the day, the Sims visited Dowling, who was working in a shed.
This conversation was recorded by Dowling, with the authority ruling he made sarcastic comments and laughed when repeatedly told to go home by his bosses.
The authority says he then agreed to go home, but Phillipa Sims told him he was fired for serious misconduct, referring to his threat to post photos on social media.
Dowling left the farm, and days later received a dismissal letter from the Sims.
That letter said he was dismissed for, among other things, acting offensively, refusing to co-operate in an investigation or a meeting related to the plant wash, and threatening to damage the reputation of the farm.
The issues in this letter were different to the issues originally identified in the original letter asking Dowling for a meeting. Dowling lodged a claim with the ERA.
The Sims told the authority Dowling was obstructive, they felt unsafe and his aggression warranted immediate dismissal. The authority disagreed, ruling Dowling was unjustifiably dismissed.
“The recording confirmed that before telling Mr Dowling he was fired, he had agreed to leave and go home,” the authority said.
“The Sims could have allowed Mr Dowling time to cool off before advising him of the new allegations and then proceeding with a meeting capturing the concerns that had arisen since handing him the [original] letter.”
The pair did not give Dowling written notice of their further concerns, nor did they propose a new meeting.
Both parties claimed that later in the employment relationship, the other had used abusive language. The authority ruled the language was “even-handed”, and no exchange was as entirely one-sided as the parties suggested.
In the authority, Dowling sought two weeks of reimbursed wages, being the amount of time it took him to find a new job, as well the difference between his wages with the Sims and his new lower-paying job, totalling 12 weeks. The authority agreed, awarding him $3952.
He also sought up to $20,000 in compensation, saying he was frustrated, angry, sad and required counselling. The authority said an award of $8000 was appropriate, which was reduced by 15 per cent due to the way he acted.
In total, Dowling was awarded $10,725.
He told NZME more farm workers needed to stand up for their rights, which he felt confident to do through an employment advocate.
