Fired for a Discount: Farmers Employee Loses Legal Battle Over $600 Policy Breach

By Lions Roar Aotearoa Consumer & Employment Desk

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND (Saturday, January 31, 2026) — An employment dispute at Farmers’ Botany branch has concluded with a stern reminder for retail workers: a staff discount is a privilege, not a right.

A former employee, who admitted to abusing her staff discount to purchase approximately $600 worth of goods for others, has had her claim of unfair dismissal rejected by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA). The worker argued that her actions were not “serious enough” to warrant losing her job, despite recently completing training on the very policy she broke.

🧠 “Do the Right Thing” Training Ignored

The case hinged on the fact that the employee was well aware of the company’s expectations. Just three months before the breach, she participated in a mandatory in-house training module titled “Do the Right Thing – Stores 2024”.

• The Course: Included specific sections on the ethical use of staff benefits and the strict rules governing the staff discount policy.
• The Breach: Evidence showed the employee used her discount to buy items for friends or family, which is a direct violation of Farmers’ policy stating discounts are for personal use or bona fide gifts paid for by the employee.
• The Value: The total value of the goods purchased under the unauthorized discount was roughly $600.

⚖️ The Legal Verdict: Serious Misconduct

The employee took her case to the ERA, arguing that a warning would have been more appropriate than a summary dismissal. However, the Authority sided with Farmers.

• Loss of Trust: The ERA found that because the employee had so recently been trained on the policy, her decision to break it constituted a fundamental breach of trust.
• Employer Rights: Farmers successfully argued that maintaining the integrity of their discount system is crucial for business sustainability and that “policy is policy.”
• Final Ruling: The dismissal was found to be what a “fair and reasonable employer” would do under the circumstances.

📊 Employment Case Summary