Adarsh Chand v Professional Stylish Barber Shop Limited [2026] NZERA 244

This determination deals with a constructive dismissal claim in a small-business setting. The Authority found two formal warning letters were issued without any fair process, and that the employer's conduct (including a "do not come to work" text message) made continued employment untenable. The resignation was treated as an unjustified constructive dismissal. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Chand was employed by the Barber Shop in a full-time role (40 hours per week). He started on 12 December 2022 and signed an employment agreement the same day. The relationship was marked by ongoing disputes about hours, pay, and treatment at work. Mr Chand said he regularly worked well above 40 hours, was not properly paid for extra hours, and was not given proper breaks. The employer denied those allegations and relied on its wage and time records.

Mr Chand also said he was repeatedly refused sick leave unless he produced a medical certificate, and that he could not always afford to obtain one. He said he was told he would not be entitled to public holidays and that he was not paid for public holidays when the shop was closed. These allegations sat alongside the later disciplinary events that led to the end of employment.

Key events leading to resignation

First warning: 13 February 2024

In early February 2024, a customer complaint arose about a haircut. Mr Chand was asked to attend a meeting on 11 February 2024 but did not attend. When he returned on 13 February 2024, he received a warning letter. The warning referred to customer complaints and included a serious allegation about a prohibited substance being bought or possessed at work. Mr Chand denied the allegation.

The Authority found there was effectively no disciplinary process before this warning was issued: the allegations were not fairly put to Mr Chand, there was no investigation, and there was no opportunity for him to respond or have representation. The warning was held to be both procedurally and substantively unjustified.

The "do not come to work" text: 13 March 2024

On 12 March 2024, the manager asked Mr Chand for a copy of his tenancy agreement and said it was required for immigration purposes. Mr Chand checked with Immigration New Zealand, was told it was not required, and relayed that back. The manager then texted him:

DONT COME TO WORK ANYMORE IN the Authority's SHOP

Mr Chand treated this as a dismissal and asked why. He was told to speak to the director, Mr Pravin Kumar. Mr Kumar said Mr Chand would be dismissed when he received a letter. Mr Chand returned to work. The Authority treated this messaging as part of an escalating pattern of unfair treatment and pressure.

Second warning: 23 March 2024

On 23 March 2024, Mr Chand received a second warning. It alleged unsatisfactory work performance and customer service issues. It also warned that a review would occur in two weeks and that failing to meet expected standards would most likely result in termination.

Again, the Authority found there was no proper process before issuing the warning: no investigation, no discussion with Mr Chand about the allegations, and no genuine opportunity for him to respond. The warning was held to be procedurally and substantively unjustified. Substantively, the Authority said it was not open to the employer to reach adverse conclusions without Mr Chand's input.

Resignation: 2 April 2024

Mr Chand resigned on 2 April 2024, giving notice with a last day of 13 April 2024. He said he felt drained, treated unfairly through unjustified warnings, and not paid properly. He gave evidence about the personal impact of the employment ending. The Authority accepted his evidence that he did not want to leave and felt forced to resign.

Employment standards claims: wages, sick leave, and records

Minimum wage / hours worked

Mr Chand claimed he had been paid less than the minimum wage overall because, although contracted for 40 hours per week, he said he often worked 55 hours. The employer provided wage and time records showing consistent 40-hour weeks. The Authority held Mr Chand did not produce corroborating evidence to displace those records and did not establish a minimum wage breach.

Wage and time records (s 130)

Mr Chand also alleged the wage and time records were not accurate. The Authority again accepted the employer's records, because Mr Chand was unable to provide corroborating evidence that the records were wrong. The s 130 record-keeping breach claim was not made out.

Sick leave

The Authority found that when Mr Chand properly notified sick leave and produced a medical certificate, sick leave was paid. It held there was insufficient evidence to support the broader allegation that sick leave was refused whenever he could not afford a certificate.

Constructive dismissal: why the resignation was treated as an unjustified dismissal

The Authority applied the constructive dismissal principles from Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Limited, including the category where a breach of duty by the employer causes the employee to resign and the breach is serious enough that resignation is a reasonably foreseeable result.

The Authority treated the two unjustified warnings, the dismissive "do not come to work" text, and the overall employment environment as serious breaches of duty. It found the employer was unlikely to change its behaviour and that continued breaches of duty caused Mr Chand to resign. It was reasonably foreseeable that he would resign rather than continue under that treatment. The Authority therefore found Mr Chand was unjustifiably dismissed by constructive dismissal (and noted it was arguably open that he had already been dismissed by the text message).

Remedies and orders

Having upheld the personal grievance, the Authority considered remedies. It found there was no blameworthy contribution by Mr Chand and made no reduction under s 124.

Practical takeaways

• Warnings require process: before issuing discipline, an employer must put allegations to the employee, investigate, and give a real opportunity to respond (and to have support).
• Messaging matters: telling an employee "do not come to work" can be treated as dismissal or as part of a pattern leading to constructive dismissal.
• Constructive dismissal is evidence-heavy: the Authority focuses on causation (did the employer's breach cause resignation?) and foreseeability (was resignation a likely consequence?).
• Records are decisive: where an employee claims extra hours, corroboration is critical if the employer produces wage and time records that show otherwise.
• Remedies can include reimbursement even where resignation occurred: if constructive dismissal is established, lost-wage reimbursement and compensation can follow.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.