The company had shown no regard for employment law when it chose to act as it did
When a powerful executive's conduct toward a subordinate is measured against the standards of a just workplace, the distance between the two can carry a significant price. Chris Meehan's resignation as CEO of Winton Land — citing health reasons — has prompted the property development company to quietly abandon its appeal of a $100,846 Employment Relations Authority ruling, a ruling that found his treatment of executive assistant Leah McCann fell far short of what New Zealand employment law demands. The case, rooted in a moment of rage over a flight seat, became a mirror held up to a workplace culture that prized compliance over dignity. In stepping back from the fight, Winton signals that some battles, once the circumstances change, are no longer worth the cost of winning.
- A single outburst over a middle seat on a business class flight set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately cost a company its CEO, its appeal, and nearly $101,000.
- Leah McCann endured months of a deteriorating work environment — pressured to resign while on sick leave, told the dysfunction was unlikely to improve — before the authority ruled in her favour.
- Winton Land initially pushed back hard, publicly declaring it would appeal the ruling and disputing the characterisation of Meehan's conduct as abusive.
- Meehan's health-related exit from the chief executive role appears to have shifted the company's calculus entirely, making continued litigation a reputational liability with no clear upside.
- Investors have taken note: Winton's share price slipped from $1.52 to $1.38 in the wake of the leadership departure, a quiet but telling verdict on the turbulence ahead.
Winton Land, the retirement village and property development company, has dropped its appeal of an Employment Relations Authority ruling requiring it to pay nearly $101,000 to a former employee — a decision that followed chief executive Chris Meehan stepping back from his role for health reasons, though he remains on the board.
At the centre of the dispute was Leah McCann, who served as Meehan's executive assistant for ten months across 2022 and 2023. The authority upheld her complaint about an incident triggered by a business class flight that failed to meet Meehan's expectations. Upon learning his seat was positioned between the bar and the toilet, he responded with a torrent of profanity directed at McCann, accused her of ignoring a prior instruction, and threatened her job. When she offered to resolve the issue with the travel agent, he swore at her again.
McCann said the incident was part of a broader pattern that made her position untenable. She described being told the behaviour would continue, that the working relationship was irreparable, and that she faced pressure to resign while on sick leave. Meehan acknowledged his anger and the likelihood he used profanity, but disputed that he had sworn "at" her or that his conduct constituted abuse. He framed his approach as a high-standards culture in which instructions are given once and accountability follows.
The authority was unconvinced, finding that Winton had shown no regard for New Zealand employment law and had failed to address the harm McCann experienced. The total award of $100,846 covered lost wages, compensation for psychological harm, and penalties — with an additional $4,000 penalty paid to the Crown.
Winton had initially declared it would fight the ruling. That resolve dissolved alongside Meehan's tenure. The company's share price, which sat at $1.52 in late June, has since settled around $1.38 — a modest but pointed signal that markets, like courts, are keeping score.
Winton Land, a retirement village and property development company, has decided to abandon its appeal of an Employment Relations Authority ruling that ordered it to pay nearly $101,000 to a former employee. The decision came after the company's chief executive, Chris Meehan, announced last month that he was stepping back from his role for health reasons, though he remains on the board.
The underlying dispute centered on Leah McCann, who worked as Meehan's executive assistant for ten months during 2022 and 2023. In March of the previous year, the authority had upheld her complaint about how Meehan treated her following a business class flight that did not meet his expectations. When McCann told him about the seating arrangement—a middle seat between the bar and the toilet—Meehan responded with a barrage of profanity, demanding to know how she had allowed such a booking to happen. When she offered to contact the travel agent to fix the problem, he swore at her again, accused her of defying an earlier instruction, and threatened to fire her if she used that agent in the future.
McCann claimed the incident and Meehan's subsequent conduct created an untenable work environment. She said she was told his behavior would likely continue, that their working relationship was broken beyond repair, and that she faced pressure to resign while on sick leave. The company, for its part, argued that performance issues with her work were the real reason for the deterioration in their relationship. Meehan himself acknowledged in his witness statement that he had been angry and would have used profanity, though he disputed the characterization that he swore "at" her or that his conduct amounted to abuse. He explained that he becomes frustrated when people fail to meet what he considers high standards or ignore his instructions. He also noted that the Winton culture operates on a principle of giving direction once and then holding people accountable if they deviate from it.
The authority, however, found that Winton had shown no regard for New Zealand employment law in its treatment of McCann. The company had failed to maintain a productive employment relationship and had not adequately addressed the distress and harm she experienced. The ruling ordered Winton Capital to pay McCann $100,846 in total: $74,846 to cover her lost wages, $25,000 in compensation for the harm she suffered, and $1,000 as a penalty. The Crown also received a $4,000 penalty from the company.
When the determination was first released, Winton stated publicly that it strongly disagreed with the outcome and intended to appeal. That position has now changed. The timing of the reversal—following Meehan's health-related departure from the chief executive position—suggests the company may have concluded that continuing to fight the case was no longer in its interest. The stock market appeared to agree with the assessment that leadership instability was a concern: Winton's share price, which had been trading at $1.52 in late June, fell to $1.40 by Friday and has since settled around $1.38, reflecting investor anxiety about the company's direction and reputation.
Notable Quotes
The company had no regard for New Zealand employment law when it chose to act in the ways it did towards McCann— Employment Relations Authority determination
The Winton group's culture is to instruct people on what to do once, and then expect them to do it, and to hold them to account if they do not— Chris Meehan, as summarized by the authority
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a company drop an appeal the moment its CEO steps back? That seems like an admission.
Not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing, but a calculation. Fighting the appeal costs money and time, and now the CEO who was at the center of the dispute is gone. The reputational damage is already done.
But Meehan is still a director. He didn't leave the company entirely.
True. He's still there, just not in the day-to-day role. That distinction matters for the appeal decision—a new leadership team might not want to carry forward a fight that looks increasingly costly.
What strikes you most about what actually happened between them?
The gap between how Meehan saw himself and how the authority saw him. He believed he was holding people to high standards. The authority saw someone who created an environment where an employee felt threatened and harmed.
Did McCann have any real power to push back?
Not much. She was his assistant. When he told her she'd be fired if she used a certain travel agent, that wasn't a suggestion—it was a threat. And when she tried to address the problem, he swore at her again.
And the company backed him up?
Initially, yes. They denied her claims and blamed performance issues. But the authority didn't buy that. Once that ruling came down, the company had to decide whether defending Meehan was worth the cost. Apparently, it wasn't.