Rooney Farms told to pay up $36,000 immediately in employment dispute

Wednesday, 10 June 2026

The Employment Relations Authority has ordered Rooney Farms to pay former shepherd Philip Stewart more than $36,500 in November 2025.

A company owned by a South Canterbury businessman has lost a bid to delay an Employment Relations Authority-ordered payment of more than $36,000 to a former worker.

Gary Rooney, of Rooney Group which owns Rooney Farms, gave affidavit evidence at an Employment Court hearing on May 27, as Rooney Farms sought to stop the payment, claiming it would face a real risk of non-recovery should the company eventually win a still-to-be-heard appeal.

The legal battle relates to Philip Stewart’s employment as a senior shepherd for Rooney Farms Ltd from 2023 until it ended in disputed circumstances, and he resigned on June 5, 2024.

Rooney Group owner Gary Rooney was criticised in a 2025 ERA decision.

In November 2025, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ordered Rooney Farms to pay Stewart more than $36,500, which included $25,000 in compensation; $7000 (gross) for the reimbursement of lost wages; $4500 as a contribution towards legal costs, and $71.55 to reimburse the authority’s filing fee.

Judge Helen Doyle’s decision meant that Rooney Farms must comply with the ERA orders from November 2025.

The stay, if successful, would have imposed a legal freeze on the payouts, ensuring Stewart could not access the money until the court made its final ruling on the entire dispute.

In the November 2025 decision by the ERA, David Beck, said Rooney had not adopted a formal approach to handling issues on the Taiko farm, inland from Timaru.

He said Rooney appeared convinced Stewart was the instigator of disharmony, and essentially threatened Stewart with a disciplinary process.

“When Mr Stewart openly reacted to this threat by briefing co-workers, and leaving the farm, Mr Rooney, in a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction resolved to immediately suspend Mr Stewart.’’

He said it was reasonably clear Rooney had predetermined the outcome of the company’s “investigation”.

Senior shepherd Philip Stewart was employed by Rooney Farms from 2023 until the employment ended in disputed circumstances, and he resigned on June 5, 2024. (File photo)

Beck said it was reasonably foreseeable that Stewart would resign as a result of their actions, including an attempt to induce his resignation with an unjustified and procedurally deficient suspension.

“As a result, Mr Stewart was dismissed and I find the dismissal was unjustified in all the circumstances.’’

With the Rooney Farms appeal still to be held, the company had sought to stay the payment, telling the court the latest challenge was genuine.

Instead of paying Stewart, Rooney Farms had offered to pay the full judgment sum into the court’s custody while the appeal was decided. However, Judge Doyle rejected the submission that paying money into the court was a standard, appropriate solution to balance opposing interests.

Judge Doyle said that in those situations, the funds being paid into court were because there were documented financial difficulties on the employer’s side that threatened ultimate collection.

In the current matter, neither party was facing financial distress.

Stewart dismissed Rooney Farms’ non-recovery argument with his affidavit showing the ERA he had been in a permanent, full-time job for several months, earning a significant salary, and possessed sufficient savings.

He said that as the successful party, he was entitled to the “fruits of his success”.

Judge Doyle determined that hiding the money in a court registry would unfairly penalise Stewart.

“A payment into court … does not address the loss in the meantime to Mr Stewart for an uncertain period to the access to, and use of the sums awarded to him,” Judge Doyle said, noting this factor weighed heavily against a stay.

Stewart, in an affidavit, rejected suggestions that the company’s challenge was filed in good faith, claiming it was an intentional tactic designed to delay his payout, and inflate his legal costs.

While the parties disagreed on the company’s motivations, Judge Doyle could not conclude that Rooney Farms brought the challenge in bad faith. She deemed this a neutral factor.

Judge Doyle said given Stewart’s stable employment and secure financial standing, there was insufficient evidence to prove that denying the stay would render Rooney Farms' right to challenge useless.

Judge Doyle declined Rooney Farms’ application for a stay of execution. A costs decision was reserved, and the Rooney Farms’ challenge to the Employment Court about the original decision was proceeding.