Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 7–13 September 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.
Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited — Costs award following successful personal grievance claims
Mr April established personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal against his former employer. The Authority had already awarded him compensatory remedies including arrears of wages, holiday pay, unlawful deductions, and a penalty. This determination dealt with costs only, as the parties could not resolve the issue themselves.
The Authority awarded Mr April costs of $8,000 plus reimbursement of the filing fee of $71.55. The member accepted that the costs claimed were reasonable given the complexity of the case, which involved two hearing days and lengthy written closing submissions covering personal grievances, strike-out applications, set-off arguments, and analysis of employee deductions and contributory conduct.
Legal considerations for employers: When an employee succeeds in an unjustified dismissal or disadvantage claim, costs typically follow the event. Employers should be aware that complex cases involving multiple legal issues and lengthy submissions will result in meaningful cost orders. Early settlement discussions can help avoid substantial additional costs on top of remedies awarded.
OAS v JIK Limited — Costs award with uplift for rejected settlement offers
OAS established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal and was awarded compensatory remedies. Costs were reserved and later determined in this decision. The key issue was whether the respondent’s rejection of settlement offers should result in an uplift to the usual cost tariff.
The Authority awarded OAS costs of $5,500 plus filing fee of $71.55, comprising the base daily tariff of $4,500 for one hearing day plus an uplift of $1,000. The member found that OAS had made three genuine settlement offers (made without prejudice save as to costs) on 17 July 2024, 2 September 2025, and 5 September 2025—all made after the application was lodged but before the investigation meeting. Had JIK Limited accepted either offer, it would have been in a better position than the Authority’s award.
Legal considerations for employers: Refusing reasonable settlement offers can result in increased costs awards against you, even if you ultimately win on liability. Making and maintaining settlement offers in writing on a without prejudice basis is important; employers should consider them carefully, especially when the employee’s claims appear strong. The timing of offers matters—those made early in proceedings before significant preparation costs are incurred carry more weight.
Kevin Newlands v Board of Trustees — COVID-19 vaccination order compliance did not breach contract
Mr Newlands was employed as a facilities manager at a school. His employment ended in late 2021 when he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in compliance with the government’s COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021. He withdrew personal grievance claims and instead pursued breach of contract claims, seeking damages including $75,000 for alleged breaches of health and safety duties, costs associated with selling his home, and redundancy compensation.
The Authority dismissed all of Mr Newlands’ claims. The member found that the Board appropriately assessed Mr Newlands’ work as falling within the scope of the vaccination order and was legally required to comply with it. There was no unilateral variation of his employment agreement, no breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, no breach of good faith, and no redundancy situation. The claims were essentially an attempt to challenge the dismissal without using the personal grievance process, which is not permitted under the Employment Relations Act.
Legal considerations for employers: When government orders impose mandatory requirements on employers (such as vaccination requirements), employers must comply with those orders even if they create employment difficulties. Employers are not in breach of contract when implementing lawful legislative requirements. Employees cannot circumvent the personal grievance process by reframing dismissal-related claims as breach of contract claims. Costs remain reserved in this matter.
OJX v AVJ (store employer) — Unjustified disadvantage for failing to accommodate health concerns
OJX was employed as a sales and service assistant. After being diagnosed with breast cancer in late 2023, she expressed discomfort working in the lingerie department and requested to be moved away from that area. While managers initially assured her this would happen when rosters allowed, this did not materialise. In early 2024 she took three months’ medical leave. Her employer requested detailed medical information and meeting attendance to assess her work capacity. After she declined to attend meetings and did not provide detailed medical certificates, she was dismissed on grounds of medical incapacity.
The Authority found OJX established unjustified disadvantage (but not unjustified dismissal). Her employer had failed to adequately explore her concerns about working in the lingerie department and failed to explain why accommodation was not possible. Despite assurances, no concrete plan to move her was communicated. While her employer’s requests for medical information were not unreasonable, and her dismissal was not unjustified, the prior failure to address her work area concerns amounted to a breach of good faith. The Authority awarded $8,000 compensation for hurt, humiliation, and loss of dignity, but declined to award lost wages as she had not actually lost earnings from the disadvantage itself.
Legal considerations for employers: When employees raise health or personal concerns about their work duties, employers must take those concerns seriously and make genuine attempts to address them. Vague assurances that something will be done “when opportunity arises” without follow-up or clear timeframes can breach the duty of good faith. Medical requests should be proportionate and employers should recognise that employees dealing with serious diagnoses may experience stress affecting their willingness to provide information. However, employers are entitled to seek relevant medical information when an employee is absent for an extended period.
Sarah Rudman v The Ultimate Care Group Limited — Constructive dismissal claim failed; unjustified disadvantage partly succeeded
Ms Rudman worked as a caregiver and then qualified as a registered nurse. She found her workload increasingly heavy, stayed late to complete notes without pay, and spent time seeking cover for shifts. She also experienced emotional distress when a resident died and felt unsupported. After a difficult interaction with a clinical manager about a medication incident, she temporarily walked out. She was persuaded to return and apologised for her behaviour. Later, she agreed to work a study leave day in exchange for an extra day’s pay in the next cycle, but this payment was not made. When she raised the shortfall with her manager, the conversation became heated. Ms Rudman then resigned, citing being “pushed to breaking point.”
The Authority found Ms Rudman had not been constructively dismissed. Although she misunderstood what her manager had promised regarding the extra day’s pay, there was no firm agreement to pay a lump sum in lieu of study leave. The manager’s undertaking to investigate the underpayment was promptly acted on and resolved within a day. However, Ms Rudman did establish unjustified disadvantage arising from how her employer handled the incident involving the clinical manager’s harsh criticism in front of other staff. The employer failed to investigate or help resolve the underlying communication and trust issues between them. The Authority awarded $13,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation but no lost wages, as Ms Rudman had continued working without interruption.
Legal considerations for employers: When a serious conflict occurs between an employee and manager, involving public criticism, employers must take steps to address the underlying issues and restore trust—not simply persuade the employee to return to work. Failing to investigate or mediate between parties after such an incident is a breach of good faith obligations. However, misunderstandings about verbal agreements regarding payment do not automatically constitute breaches if the employer acts reasonably to clarify and resolve them quickly.
Arthi Devi v St John of God Hauora Trust — Permanent part-time employee misclassified as casual; substantial arrears owed
Ms Devi commenced as a part-time support worker in 2017. In February 2022, she gave notice to resign due to inability to work 30 hours weekly. Rather than end employment, her employer agreed she would work 7am to 1pm on Saturdays and Sundays (6 hours per week). This arrangement was never documented in writing. Despite this, her employer paid her 8% holiday pay alongside wages and treated her as casual, not providing annual leave or sick leave. From mid-2024, the employer stopped rostering her automatically and required her to compete for shifts via a multi-text system, with other permanent employees sometimes allocated her usual shifts first. When Ms Devi raised concerns about being treated as casual, her employer eventually offered a choice between part-time and casual employment, which she initially declined. She has not worked since September 2024.
The Authority found Ms Devi had been a permanent part-time employee throughout, not casual. Her employer breached the Holidays Act by paying holiday pay instead of annual leave, and failed to comply with requirements to document employment variations and provide written confirmation of her employment terms. The Authority ordered the employer to: pay $32,739.84 in unpaid remuneration for periods when shifts were not provided despite her being ready and willing; pay $7,000 compensation for unjustified disadvantage; pay $584.64 for unpaid sick leave and public holiday pay; calculate and pay outstanding annual leave; pay a $2,000 penalty (split between the employee and Crown); and provide written confirmation of her permanent part-time status. The employer was also ordered to engage in good faith discussions about whether Ms Devi will resume work or whether the employment relationship will end.
Legal considerations for employers: Informal variations to employment arrangements must still be documented in writing and employees’ statutory classification (permanent vs casual) has legal consequences that cannot be avoided by simply paying holiday pay instead of leave. Once an employee is classified as permanent, they retain that status unless formally changed by mutual agreement with proper documentation. Employers cannot require permanent employees to compete for their guaranteed hours via casual shift systems. When disputes arise about employment status, employers should resolve them promptly and formally rather than allowing uncertainty to persist for years.
Michael Johnston v Youtap Mobile Money Asia Pte Limited — Leave granted to serve overseas respondent
Dr Johnston was employed by Youtap Limited in New Zealand but moved to Singapore in 2015 to work for the respondent company, Youtap Mobile Money Asia Pte Limited (YMMA), which is a Singapore-incorporated subsidiary. His employment ended and he raised a personal grievance. The Employment Court previously determined that YMMA (not Youtap Limited) was his employer from 2015 onwards. Dr Johnston now seeks leave to serve his statement of problem on YMMA overseas, as YMMA is outside New Zealand’s jurisdiction.
The Authority granted leave to serve the statement of problem on YMMA in Singapore. The member applied the established test from Employment Court case law, considering whether it was more appropriate to resolve the matter elsewhere and whether the applicant would receive fair treatment and proper justice. Key factors included: YMMA is Singapore-incorporated but controlled by Youtap Limited (NZ); Dr Johnston’s claims involve NZ employment law protections that are unique to NZ; there is no effective remedy available in Singapore; the witnesses and documents are predominantly located in NZ; and it would be more convenient and less costly to determine the matter in NZ. The member found these factors favoured granting leave to serve in Singapore.
Legal considerations for employers: When employing someone overseas through a foreign subsidiary, employers should be aware that they may still face personal grievance proceedings in New Zealand if the employment relationship was established in NZ or if the subsidiary is controlled by a NZ parent company. The Authority has jurisdiction to hear claims involving NZ employment law protections even when the respondent is overseas. Employers with overseas operations should ensure proper documentation of employment arrangements and understand that disputes may need to be resolved in the employee’s home country rather than where the subsidiary operates.
Timothy Osbaldiston v Primehort Distributors Limited — Unjustified dismissal for inadequate redundancy consultation
Mr Osbaldiston worked as an operations and projects assistant. In March 2025, his employer held an urgent meeting advising that the projects department had incurred approximately $1 million in losses due to “gross incompetence and mismanagement.” His position was made redundant effective two weeks later. Mr Osbaldiston was not provided with detailed financial information showing why his position specifically needed to be removed, was not given sufficient time to respond, and the decision appeared predetermined before the meeting.
The Authority found Mr Osbaldiston was unjustifiably dismissed. The employer failed to provide him with relevant information about the basis for the redundancy (particularly the connection between the alleged mismanagement losses and his role), failed to give him a genuine opportunity to comment, and the process was too rushed. While redundancy is a legitimate reason for dismissal, procedural fairness requires providing information and meaningful opportunity for input. The Authority awarded $12,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation, and $1,200 in lost remuneration (representing approximately two weeks’ wages until he found new employment). No reduction was made for contributing conduct as the predetermined nature of the decision meant Mr Osbaldiston could not have influenced the outcome.
Legal considerations for employers: Redundancy processes must include: clear information about why the position is redundant and how that connects to the individual’s role; reasonable time for the employee to respond and ask questions; genuine consideration of the employee’s response; and, where possible, exploration of alternatives. Even in urgent circumstances, employers should not shortcut consultation. A decision that appears predetermined before the employee has had a chance to respond will be found unjustified. Providing financial information showing business losses is necessary but not sufficient—the employer must specifically explain why the employee’s position must be disestablished.
Soungsil Ro v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited — Medical incapacity dismissal justified where employee refused cooperation
Ms Ro worked as a part-time bus driver from 2021. In May 2022, she was offered a specific full-time route (8029) to meet her scheduling preferences. When Auckland Transport’s route requirements changed in mid-2024, her assigned duties changed to include night driving and school runs, which she had not previously performed. She claimed these were unsafe and refused to work them. She provided only a 2022 medical certificate and refused to attend in-person meetings or provide updated medical information, insisting on email-only communication. After several attempts to understand her medical restrictions and obtain information, her employer terminated her employment for medical incapacity.
The Authority found Ms Ro was not unjustifiably dismissed. Although her employer’s process was not perfect and the use of a templated letter with technical terminology was not ideal for an employee with limited English, the employer made reasonable efforts to understand her restrictions. It offered to pay for a medical assessment, offered her own GP as an option, provided an interpreter, and allowed email-only communication as she requested. Ms Ro’s refusal to provide any medical evidence or engage constructively meant the employer could not determine whether her claimed limitations were genuine, temporary, or permanent. The Authority also found Ms Ro remained a part-time employee (not full-time as she claimed) and she was not entitled to four weeks’ paid sick leave for a period of leave taken for family reasons.
Legal considerations for employers: When an employee raises medical restrictions on work duties, employers must seek to understand the genuine medical basis for those restrictions and provide a fair process. However, employees have reciprocal obligations to cooperate and provide relevant medical information. If an employee refuses to provide medical evidence or engage in discussions about their restrictions, employers can make employment decisions based on the information available. Employers must be careful not to make assumptions about medical limitations based on the employee’s stated preferences, but can reasonably require medical evidence before accommodating significant changes to working arrangements. The requirement in the employment agreement for a medical officer assessment is important, though offering to pay for an assessment with flexibility on the doctor used can satisfy procedural fairness even if it technically deviates from the contract.
Philip Moller v Cardinal Logistics Limited — Costs and lost remuneration quantum determined following settlement impasse
This is a costs and quantum determination following an earlier Authority finding that Mr Moller was unjustifiably dismissed. The earlier determination had awarded him compensation but left the quantum of lost remuneration and suspension pay for the parties to agree. They were unable to do so. In addition, Mr Moller had made a Calderbank settlement offer of $12,000 (including costs) which Cardinal rejected in favour of a counter-offer of $5,000.
The Authority awarded Mr Moller: $8,500 in costs (reflecting a base tariff for a one-day hearing plus an uplift of $1,000 in recognition of the Calderbank offer); $18,510.34 in lost remuneration comprising wages ($16,640), holiday pay ($1,331.20), and KiwiSaver contribution ($539.14); $1,067.90 for unpaid wages during suspension (comprising wages $960, holiday pay $76.80, and KiwiSaver $31.10); and an additional $1,000 costs contribution for having to resolve the quantum dispute. The member calculated lost remuneration on the basis of 13 weeks at Mr Moller’s contracted ordinary hours of 40 hours per week (not any additional hours he may have worked), as Mr Moller had not provided evidence of consistently working beyond contracted hours.
Legal considerations for employers: When settlement offers are made early in proceedings on a Calderbank basis, the court or Authority will consider them when awarding costs if the offer was reasonable. An employee who rejects a reasonable settlement offer and then receives a larger award will see costs increased against the employer. Employers should ensure they have clear records of what hours employees actually work (contracted vs actual) as this affects quantum calculations for lost remuneration. Where parties cannot agree on quantum following a personal grievance finding, they will need to return to the Authority, incurring additional costs. Early realistic settlement discussions can avoid this expense.
