Andrea Lawson v Luxottica Retail New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 52

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

Andrea Lawson was a store manager for Luxottica Retail New Zealand Limited. The dispute started after a meeting on 3 September 2024 about store performance and compliance with company policy (including customer handovers).

Lawson said the meeting was handled in a way that caused her significant stress. She left work, obtained medical certificates, and raised a personal grievance alleging bullying and a failure to keep the workplace safe.

Luxottica asked an HR business partner to investigate. The parties then communicated through their lawyers. Lawson requested that Luxottica set out the terms of reference (what the investigation would cover and the steps it would follow), and she also sought information she could provide to a medical practitioner about what would change to make the workplace safe for a return to work.

Luxottica did not provide terms of reference at the outset, and its investigation took months. A draft report was sent in late December 2024 and the final report was not issued until mid-February 2025.

Lawson resigned before the investigation was finalised. She then brought claims in the ERA including constructive dismissal (unjustified dismissal) and unjustified disadvantage for how Luxottica handled her concerns, the investigation, and related process steps.

Non-publication: This determination is also subject to a non-publication order at para [10] in relation to witness physical and mental health information. This summary avoids reproducing that protected detail.

What the Authority had to decide

• Constructive dismissal / unjustified dismissal (was Lawson forced to resign, and was that unjustified under the s 103A test?).
• Unjustified disadvantage (whether Luxottica's actions disadvantaged Lawson, including: (i) failure to provide a safe work environment; (ii) failure to promptly investigate; (iii) failure to take timely corrective steps; (iv) failure to pay mediation attendance as required by the agreement; and (v) refusal/handling of annual leave during the investigation).
• Remedies if any grievance is upheld (lost wages/compensation) and whether any reduction for contribution applies (s 124).
• Good faith breach claim (including about annual leave and return-to-work information).
• Costs.

What the Authority decided

• Unjustified dismissal was not made out. The constructive dismissal claim was not upheld.
• Unjustified disadvantage was upheld, but not on the ground that Luxottica knowingly failed to provide specific supports for a disclosed medical condition (the Authority found Lawson did not actually request specific accommodations, and Luxottica could not fairly be criticised for not providing supports that were never requested).
• Luxottica's investigation process disadvantaged Lawson: it did not provide terms of reference or even an informal roadmap despite a reasonable request, and this undermined her ability to participate and maintain trust and confidence.
• The overall time taken was unreasonable (around six months from initial concerns to final report) and inconsistent with Luxottica's own policy to investigate 'without delay'.
• The Authority found no blameworthy conduct by Lawson that contributed to the grievances, so no reduction of remedies was applied.
• No good faith breach was found in the initial annual leave refusal because the manager reconsidered and changed position after taking advice, which was consistent with being active, responsive, and communicative.
• A breach of good faith was found because Luxottica did not meaningfully engage with Lawson about return-to-work information and steps while also leaving her in the dark about the investigation process.

Remedies and orders

The formal orders made are set out at the end of the determination. In summary:

• Lost remuneration: an amount equal to one day's wages plus associated holiday pay and KiwiSaver entitlements (gross) for contractually required mediation attendance, payable within 28 days.
• Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $15,000 (no deduction), payable within 28 days.
• Penalty for breach of good faith: $3,000 (no deduction), payable within 28 days.
• Costs reserved. If costs are not agreed, the applicant may file a costs memorandum within 28 days, with the respondent having 14 days to reply after service. The Authority indicated it would usually assess costs on a daily tariff basis.

Why this case matters

• If you run a workplace investigation, give the employee a clear process roadmap (terms of reference or equivalent). Leaving people in the dark can itself be an unjustified disadvantage.
• Delay matters. If your own policy says 'without delay', you need to allocate resources and prioritise the investigation so it actually happens promptly.
• Good faith is not just about replying to letters. If an employee is off work and asking what will change so they can safely return, the employer needs to engage meaningfully about expectations and possible steps.
• Not every grievance about 'stress' becomes a dismissal case. Here the dismissal claim failed, but process disadvantages still resulted in significant compensation and a penalty.

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.