Mary-Jane Thomas
Employment Court
Brown v Alliance Group Ltd [2026] NZERA 569 (PDF, 310.70 kB)
The Employment Relations Authority found that Alliance Group Limited unjustifiably dismissed Paul Brown, a long-serving Grade A Slaughterman of 38 years who had disclosed his use of prescription medicinal cannabis years ago for chronic pain from a workplace injury. Although Brown failed a second random drug test for THC while on a final warning, the Authority found Alliance rushed the dismissal process, failed to properly investigate Browns circumstances, and could not establish that his conduct met the threshold of serious misconduct given his disclosed prescription use and lack of any evidence of impairment at work. Brown was ordered permanent reinstatement to his former position and seniority, awarded $25,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation, and granted lost wages back dating to the date of dismissal, with no reduction for contributory conduct.
Jackson, Bailey & Dalzell v The Board of Trustees of Southland Boys High School [2022] NZEmpC 136 (PDF, 248.03 kB)
The applicants in this case were longstanding and senior secondary school teachers who were dismissed following a restructuring exercise. The Employment Relations Authority found that the dismissals were procedurally flawed and the three teachers had been unjustifiably dismissed. The defendants were each awarded compensation of $28,000 and lost wages of $25,679, these awards were then upheld in the Employment Court.
Cowan v Kidd Partnership [2020] NZEmpC 110 (PDF, 327.06 kB)
Employment Relations Authority
Dignum v Veolia Water Services (ANZ) Pty Ltd [2026] NZERA 375 (PDF, 1.78 MB)
Mr Dignum challenged Veolia’s decision to replace his long-standing double-cab company vehicle with a smaller utility vehicle following an accident. The Authority found that the provision of a vehicle formed part of Mr Dignum’s remuneration package and that Veolia had unjustifiably disadvantaged him by allocating a lower-specification “tool of trade” vehicle inconsistent with the benefit he had bargained for. Veolia was ordered to compensate Mr Dignum for the loss of that employment benefit, with the amount to be agreed between the parties.
Colyer v NZAS Ltd [2026] NZERA 444 (PDF, 2.35 MB)
Mr Colyer received a written warning following an isolation incident. The Employment Relations Authority found NZAS had conducted a flawed disciplinary process, including failing to properly investigate the allegations, providing incomplete information, and breaching its duty of good faith. Although Mr Colyer’s claim of constructive dismissal was unsuccessful, he succeeded in a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage and was awarded $18,000 compensation.
HNX v LAU [2025] NZERA 684 (PDF, 3.12 MB)
The case involved an employee challenging his dismissal following a workplace restructuring. The employer claimed his role was disestablished following a fair restructuring process and argued that interim reinstatement was not practicable or reasonable, raising concerns for the first time about the applicant’s behaviour in the workplace, which were based on untested evidence that had never been put to the applicant. The applicant argued the restructure process lacked genuineness and that the employer failed to offer him redeployment, instead advertising roles externally. The applicant provided evidence of his strong performance, safety focus, and positive reputation among colleagues and clients in support of his application for reinstatement.
The Authority found the applicant had a strong arguable case for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal, as well as a seriously arguable case for permanent reinstatement. It held that the balance of convenience favoured him and ordered interim reinstatement, requiring the employer to immediately reinstate him to payroll, backpay him to the final date of his redundancy payment, and place him in a suitable role when one became available, pending the substantive hearing.
Trail v Veolia Water Services Limited [2025] NZERA 353 (PDF, 3.08 MB)
Mr Trail was dismissed by Veolia following complaints about his behaviour towards managers and colleagues. The Authority found the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair, including failures to properly investigate allegations, clearly identify concerns, and provide a genuine opportunity to respond. He was awarded compensation of $10,000 and six and a half weeks’ lost remuneration.
Pink v Powernet Limited [2025] MZERA 374 (PDF, 5.45 MB)
Tecson v Pride Property Management [2024] NZERA 322 (PDF, 1.48 MB)
We acted for an employer in this successful defence of a claim for unjustified dismissal arising out of a 90 day trial period.
WFW v ZUW [2024] NZERA 306 Part 1 (PDF, 414.76 kB) WFW v ZUW [2024] NZERA 306 Part 2 (PDF, 536.51 kB)
In this case a fourteen year old was awarded $20000 compensation by the Employment Relations Authority after a finding that she had been sexually harrassed.
Smyth v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited [2023] NZERA 712 (PDF, 2.35 MB)
Ms Smyth was a Fonterra canteen worker who was dismissed from her role for a failure to wear a face mask due to her asthma. Fonterra alleged that Ms Smyth could not fulfil the changed requirements of her role to wear a face mask. Ms Smyth was not given the opportunity to respond to these allegations and was therefore unjustifiably dismissed, she was awarded compensation of $30,000 and received lost wages for a 14 month period.
Twose v Kiwirail Limited [2023] NZERA 662 (PDF, 3.25 MB)
Mr Twose was employed with KiwiRail Interislander, his employment was terminated under the KiwiRail mandatory vaccination policy. KiwiRail had failed to exhaust alternatives to termination when Mr Twose was dismissed, and they also disadvantaged him by keeping him working while he was unvaccinated. Mr Twose was awarded compensation of $20,000 and four months lost wages.
Hall v Kiwirail Limited [2023] NZERA 646 (PDF, 4.11 MB)
KiwiRail introduced a mandatory vaccination policy which had applied to Mr Hall, once this policy ended he remained excluded in the workplace and requested a bullying investigation take place. The Employer failed to take appropriate steps and Mr Hall was found to have been constructively dismissed. He was awarded compensation of $20,000 and $4,890 in lost wages.
Milne v Allied Investments Limited t/a Allied Security [2023] NZERA 638 (PDF, 1.91 MB)
Ms Milne was employed at Tiwai Point as a security officer. Allied Security secured the contract to provide security services at Tiwai from Ms Milne’s previous employer while she was off on parental leave. While she was away on parental leave she was unjustifiably dismissed from her employment. The authority awarded compensation of $18,000 and lost wages of $12,875.
Baillie v The Vice Chancellor of the University of Otago [2023] NZERA 438 (PDF, 3.66 MB)
Ms Baillie was employed with the University of Otago, when they introduced a mandatory vaccination policy she proposed to work from home. The University failed to properly engage and therefore failed to consider all reasonable alternatives to termination. The dismissal was held to be unjustified and Ms Baillie was awarded compensation of $20,000 and $33,023.50 in lost wages.
Amos, Menpes & Burgess v Evandale Gardens [2021] NZERA 414 (PDF, 1.21 MB)
The three Applicants in this case worked for Evandale Gardens and were dismissed following a restructuring exercise. Due to various procedural flaws in the process and breaches of good faith the Applicants were found to have been unjustifiably dismissed. This led to compensation ranging from $18,000 - $20,000 for the three Applicants as well as an additional award of $7,488 in lost wages to one of the Applicants.
Fitzek v The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2021] NZERA 28 (PDF, 34.87 kB)
Ms Fitzek worked in a restaurant as a Manager, she became pregnant and was declined paid parental leave on the basis that she was short of the minimum number of weeks required to qualify. Her employment had ended after she had raised a personal grievance arising out of discrimination, the Authority found that MBIE should have taken this into account and found that Ms Fitzek was entitled to 16 weeks paid parental leave.
Jackson, Bailey & Dalzell v The Board of Trustees of Southland Boys High School [2020] NZERA 527 (PDF, 3.37 MB)
The applicants in this case were longstanding and senior secondary school teachers who were dismissed following a restructuring exercise. The Employment Relations Authority found that the dismissals were procedurally flawed and the three teachers had been unjustifiably dismissed. The defendants were each awarded compensation of $28,000 and lost wages of $25,679, these awards were then upheld in the Employment Court.
