Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 3–9 August 2026
Each week the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) publishes its determinations. Below is a summary of the cases determined this week, with key points for New Zealand business owners and employers.
Ashleigh Sanders v Hamilton City Council — Micromanagement and bullying at zoo workplace
Ms Sanders worked at Hamilton Zoo and raised concerns about her manager’s behaviour, which she described as intrusive, controlling, and creating an unsafe workplace culture. She alleged bullying, failure to provide a safe working environment, and poor handling of her grievances. The Zoo took some steps to address culture issues, including surveys and support for staff, but Ms Sanders’ concerns about her direct manager were not formally investigated through the bullying procedure.
The Authority found that Ms Sanders was unjustifiably disadvantaged by her manager’s behaviour. The manager had asked her personal questions, sought private information about colleagues, engaged in unclear boundary-crossing conduct, and told her she would not progress in her career due to lack of relationships rather than merit. The Authority awarded Ms Sanders $18,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings. No deduction was made for contribution. The constructive dismissal claim was not upheld, as the manager had left the organisation 14 months before her resignation.
Legal considerations for employers: Managers must maintain professional boundaries and avoid intrusive personal conduct with staff. Simply having policies in place is not enough—employers must actively ensure employees know how to raise concerns outside their direct line of management and respond promptly to bullying allegations. Delayed responses or lack of follow-up can leave employers liable even if they eventually take some remedial action. Informal management styles can inadvertently create power imbalances and unsafe cultures.
Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited — Costs award for unjustified dismissal
Mr Huntley-Byrne was found to have been unjustifiably dismissed in a previous determination. The parties were encouraged to settle costs between themselves but could not agree. The respondent argued costs should be reduced due to the applicant’s contributory conduct and the mixed outcome of the case.
The Authority ordered Dallison 2021 Limited to pay Mr Huntley-Byrne $4,500 plus the $71.55 filing fee as a contribution to his costs. The Authority applied the standard daily tariff for one day of investigation meeting, with no uplift or reduction. The respondent’s arguments about contribution and mixed outcomes were rejected because contributory conduct had already been addressed in the substantive determination, and costs awards are not meant to punish or express disapproval.
Legal considerations for employers: Costs follow the event in employment disputes. Once you have lost on the substantive issue, costs arguments cannot use the same contribution findings again, and arguing about conduct already assessed in the main determination is unlikely to succeed. Employers should budget for standard daily tariff costs when defending or settling employment claims.
Debbie Watkins v Tautoko Mai Sexual Harm Support Services Trust — Costs consent determination
Ms Watkins’ claims were dismissed in a previous determination. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves and reached an agreed settlement.
By consent, Ms Watkins agreed to pay Tautoko Mai Sexual Harm Support Services Trust $5,373 (equivalent to one-and-a-quarter days of the Authority’s daily tariff). This order is made with the agreement of both parties, with any outstanding issues about payment timing to be referred back to the Authority if needed.
Legal considerations for employers: When you win an employment case, costs normally follow the event. However, parties can negotiate settlements outside the standard tariff. Consent determinations provide certainty and avoid further delay, making them attractive even if not at the full amount you might claim. The unsuccessful party typically bears the cost burden.
Franciscus Schouten v Health New Zealand — Application for leave to raise grievance denied
Mr Schouten was dismissed on 7 November 2022 but did not file his personal grievance claim with the Authority until 11 July 2025—over two years and eight months later. He sought leave to raise his claim outside the 90-day notification period, claiming exceptional circumstances including reliance on an employment advocate who declined to act for him on a no-win-no-fee basis and lack of union support after he ceased paying membership fees.
The Authority declined to grant leave. Mr Schouten had consulted an advocate but never instructed them to raise a grievance, and had not been a union member at the time of his dismissal so could not claim abandonment by the union. He was able to consider raising a personal grievance but chose not to after receiving initial advice. His trauma, while acknowledged, did not meet the high threshold of preventing him from properly considering a grievance within the timeframe. The prejudice to the employer from a claim raised nearly three years late was also significant.
Legal considerations for employers: The 90-day notification period is a strict deadline. Employees cannot rely on informal inquiries to advocates or union representatives unless they have formally instructed them to act. Personal trauma from dismissal, while understandable, does not automatically extend this deadline. Employers should be aware that even claims raised very late will be closely scrutinised, and long delays create genuine prejudice to your ability to respond fairly.
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh — Dismissal over performance; underpayment claims rejected
Mr Singh worked as a delivery driver for PR Kahlon Limited (Kahlon) from July 2023 and was dismissed in June 2024 for poor performance. He claimed he was systematically underpaid (paid 30 hours weekly regardless of actual work), denied unpaid training time, denied holiday pay, and sought penalties for breaches of wage laws and good faith. He also sued the company director, Satpal Singh, personally for involvement in breaches of minimum employment standards.
The Authority found Mr Singh was unjustifiably dismissed because the company did not clearly communicate that he had a reasonable opportunity to improve after the performance improvement plan. However, most other claims failed: Mr Singh was paid significantly more than 30 hours per week (averaging 35.5 to 47 hours), his logbooks conflicted with his testimony, and the final pay deduction for training he had voluntarily undertaken was lawful. The Authority awarded Mr Singh $13,495.30 as compensation for lost remuneration (three months’ ordinary time earnings) plus $18,000 for hurt and humiliation, reduced by 25% for his contribution to his poor performance. The claim against the director personally failed because he relied on accountant advice about the company’s cashflow position.
Legal considerations for employers: Dismissal must follow a fair process with clear communication about what the employee must do to improve. Performance concerns must be explained in language the employee understands, especially where English proficiency is limited. Keep detailed payroll records and contemporaneous notes about hours worked and adjustments made. Directors can protect themselves by obtaining professional advice (from accountants or lawyers) about the company’s financial position and capacity to pay wages, which provides a defence against personal liability for breaches of minimum employment standards.
Christo Joost v Cataldo Miccio, Peter Win, and Bruce Whall — Director liability for unpaid wages dismissed
Mr Joost was employed by Aether Pacific Pharmaceuticals Limited (APP), which went into liquidation. He was not paid his final two salary payments or accrued holiday entitlements totalling approximately $17,000. He sued three non-executive directors personally under section 142W of the Employment Relations Act, claiming they were “persons involved” in the company’s breach of employment standards by failing to pay wages.
The Authority found that while APP had breached employment standards by not paying Mr Joost, the three directors were not liable personally. The non-executive directors did not know the primary facts about non-payment and had reasonably relied on advice from accountants about the company’s financial position and ability to continue operating at the time. The defence under section 142ZD of the Act (having taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance, or having relied on third-party advice) applied to all three directors.
Legal considerations for employers: Non-executive directors can protect themselves from personal liability for wage breaches by relying on professional advice from accountants or lawyers about the company’s financial health and ability to pay. However, this defence only works if you genuinely do not know that wages are not being paid. Directors who are more actively involved in day-to-day operations (such as authorising wage payments) face greater risk of personal liability if they ignore warning signs about the company’s financial distress.
Jaspreet Kaur v Patel Catering Limited and Chaitali Patel — Costs uplift for failure to provide wage records
Ms Kaur was found to be owed monies by Patel Catering Limited (in liquidation) and, to the extent the company could not pay, by director Chaitali Patel personally. In the earlier substantive determination, costs were reserved. Ms Kaur now sought costs, arguing she incurred substantially greater costs preparing her case because the employer failed to provide statutory wages and employment records, forcing her to reconstruct her wages from bank statements and IRD records.
The Authority awarded Ms Kaur $3,450 as a contribution to costs (an uplift from the standard half-day tariff) plus $121.92 in disbursements and the $71.55 filing fee. The upward adjustment was justified because the employer’s failure to maintain and provide required statutory records substantially increased the work needed to prepare the case. To the extent the company could not pay, the director was ordered to pay.
Legal considerations for employers: You are legally required to keep and maintain wage records and employment records. Failure to do so not only breaches employment law but will significantly increase your costs exposure if a dispute goes to the Authority. You may have to pay an uplift on the standard costs tariff if an employee has had to do extra work reconstructing their entitlements from other sources. Keep meticulous wage and time records from day one of employment.
Geneva Chan v Hamilton City Council — Justified dismissal for dishonesty in animal welfare incident
Ms Chan worked as a zookeeper at Hamilton Zoo and was dismissed following an incident in which guinea fowl chicks in her care died after the incubator was not switched on. She alleged bullying by her manager and claimed she was unjustifiably dismissed. She also alleged the council failed to properly investigate her bullying complaint.
The Authority found the dismissal was justified. Ms Chan was responsible for the chicks that day, understood the temperature protocols, and failed to check the incubator temperature on arrival or during her check. More seriously, she gave a false account of events (saying the incubator had been switched on when it had not), corrected this only when directly challenged, and offered various excuses. While she did not formally raise a bullying complaint through the council’s policy (which allowed her to raise concerns with any manager, not just her direct manager), the council was not aware of her concerns and could not respond to issues it did not know about. The council carried out a fair and thorough investigation, provided procedural fairness, and had legitimate grounds to lose trust and confidence in her.
Legal considerations for employers: Dismissal for dishonesty can be justified if the employer carries out a fair investigation and gives the employee opportunity to respond. Safety-critical roles (such as animal care) require high standards of honesty and reliability. Employees must use the complaint procedures available to them; employers cannot be expected to respond to concerns they are not made aware of. Document investigations thoroughly, give employees chances to explain discrepancies, and be consistent in how you treat similar issues.
Modern Transport Engineers Limited v Kyle Spencer — Mixed outcome; costs lie where they fall
Modern Transport Engineers Limited and Mr Spencer had duelling claims. MTE claimed Mr Spencer owed approximately $82,000 for unauthorised use of company resources (labour on a boat and caravan). Mr Spencer claimed unjustified dismissal and sought $12,000 compensation. The Authority found MTE was owed approximately $3,500–$5,900 and ordered MTE to pay Mr Spencer $12,000 for unjustified dismissal. Each party sought costs.
The Authority determined that neither party was substantially successful. The investigation took three days, evidence and issues were complex, and neither party obtained the remedies sought to the extent they advanced. No party could be characterised as the winner. An earlier settlement offer from Mr Spencer ($10,000) was not renewed or updated as the case progressed, and carrying little weight in costs assessment. The Authority found no conduct of such significance as to warrant departure from the principle that costs lie where they fall, so no costs award was made to either party.
Legal considerations for employers: When both parties achieve partial success, the Authority often declines to award costs because apportioning them fairly is difficult. Settlement offers carry weight only if renewed or updated as the case progresses and evidence crystallises. If your settlement offer is not accepted, updating it as you learn more through evidence and submissions strengthens your position on costs. A truly mixed outcome means you may bear your own costs despite winning some aspects of the case.
Sky Kahuroa v Beard Brothers Limited — Leave granted to raise grievance one day late
Ms Kahuroa was dismissed on 8 May 2025 for serious misconduct. She raised her personal grievance on 6 August 2025, which was one day outside the 90-day notification period. Her advocate, Ms Waterhouse, had been instructed to raise the grievance but failed to file it in time. Ms Waterhouse was caring for a seriously unwell family member who later passed away, and she took extended leave during this period, returning to work around the time the deadline expired.
The Authority granted leave for Ms Kahuroa to raise her grievance outside the notification period. Ms Waterhouse had made reasonable arrangements to have the grievance raised and, while her failure was not technically “unreasonable,” exceptional circumstances existed under section 115 of the Act. The circumstances (caring for a family member in serious decline, bereavements, and return to work coinciding with the deadline expiry) were sufficiently exceptional. The delay was minimal (one day), so policy reasons for the 90-day rule were unlikely to be engaged, and it was just to grant leave. The parties were directed to mediation.
Legal considerations for employers: A one-day delay in raising a personal grievance is extremely marginal and may result in leave being granted if exceptional circumstances exist. Caring responsibilities and bereavements can constitute exceptional circumstances even if the agent’s failure was not technically “unreasonable.” However, this does not mean all delays will be forgiven—long delays still face significant prejudice arguments. If you receive a late personal grievance, promptly raise the time issue but be prepared that minimal delays (especially one day) may not bar the claim.
