Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Auto John Huntley-Byrne, who worked at Hind Quarters, a café in Waverley operated by Dallison 2021 Limited. Dallison dismissed him after close-up tasks were left incomplete at the end of a shift. The ERA accepted that Dallison had workplace concerns, but found the dismissal unjustified because it did not run a fair disciplinary process before ending his employment. A group Messenger exchange and a direct text message were not an adequate substitute for a proper disciplinary meeting, support-person rights, a fair opportunity to respond, and genuine consideration of the employee's explanation. After a 10 percent contribution reduction, Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation. It was also ordered to pay a $500 penalty to the Crown for failing to provide complete wage and time records. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The short point

This is a straightforward but useful unfair dismissal case. Dallison had concerns about Mr Huntley-Byrne's work, including attendance, cleanliness, work practices, customer-facing conduct, and the way the café was closed on 17 November 2024. The problem was not that the employer was forbidden from having those concerns. The problem was that it moved from frustration to dismissal without the basic process required by the Employment Relations Act, the employment agreement, and the employee handbook.

The ERA accepted that Ms James, for Dallison, did some investigation after the 17 November close-up. She went into the café, took photographs of unfinished tasks, and raised the issue in a group Messenger chat. But that was not enough when dismissal was a possible outcome. The Authority said a Messenger exchange was not an appropriate forum for a disciplinary process, particularly where termination of employment was in play.

The case is a reminder that text-message dismissals are risky. Even where an employee may have made mistakes, an employer normally still needs to identify the concerns, give notice of a disciplinary meeting, allow representation or support, provide the evidence relied on, give a reasonable opportunity to respond, and genuinely consider the response before deciding.

Background

Dallison 2021 Limited operated a café in Waverley called Hind Quarters. In June 2024, Mr Huntley-Byrne was introduced to the business through Tania Jeffries, whose daughter was in a relationship with him. Ms Jeffries worked for Dallison and suggested a café role could assist Mr Huntley-Byrne, who had been without work for some time, while the café also needed more staff.

Mr Huntley-Byrne started work on 5 June 2024. He did not sign a written employment agreement until September 2024, but he was provided with an employee handbook shortly after he started. He received a brief induction from the acting café manager, Shannon Evans, including dishes, the café layout, and some front of house duties. In practice, he settled into general kitchen work, including cooking on the grill and washing dishes.

Dallison's evidence was that problems started after about three weeks. Ms Evans said there were issues with missed rostered shifts, cleanliness, dirty uniform, and tasks not being completed correctly. Ms James said she frequently spoke to Mr Huntley-Byrne and genuinely wanted him to succeed, including offering counselling and support. Mr Huntley-Byrne denied that he needed to be directed about improper presentation or work practices.

The October 2024 meeting and final warning letter

In October 2024, Ms Evans told Ms James that something needed to be done if she was going to remain working at the café. Ms Evans was concerned that some of Mr Huntley-Byrne's work practices were putting the café at risk, and that customers had overheard him yelling.

Ms James asked Mr Huntley-Byrne to meet with her and to bring a support person. The meeting was held at another Dallison business, a clothing store across the road from the café. It lasted about 45 minutes. Dallison said matters discussed included lateness, cleanliness, and an argument between Mr Huntley-Byrne and Ms Evans about cleaning. Mr Huntley-Byrne apologised for the argument, but no disciplinary outcome or warning was issued at the meeting and no meeting notes were provided to him.

After the meeting, Ms James wrote a letter dated 29 October 2024. The letter recorded matters discussed and advised Mr Huntley-Byrne of a final warning about his conduct. Ms James put the letter in a sealed envelope and handed it to him at the café. Mr Huntley-Byrne did not open it and instead threw it onto a shelf with timesheets. Ms James did not tell him to open it and did not meet with him privately to go through it. She later found the envelope still sealed after the employment ended.

The 17 November 2024 close-up

On 17 November 2024, Mr Huntley-Byrne worked his normal shift and closed the café with Brooke Watty. Ms Watty had arranged to leave early for an appointment, leaving Mr Huntley-Byrne to close the café.

After the café had closed, Ms James entered the café to do the cash-up and saw a number of incomplete close-up tasks. These included the alarm not being set, the sandwich press being left on, milk left on the counter, scum in the sinks, and cardboard boxes in front of a freezer vent. Ms James took photographs and posted them to the Hind Quarters staff group Messenger chat.

In the group chat, Ms James asked who had done the kitchen. Mr Huntley-Byrne said that he and Ms Watty had been working and that Ms Watty had left early for an appointment. Ms James responded that it was not good enough, that the café could have been burnt down, and that Mr Huntley-Byrne could not do his job. Mr Huntley-Byrne tried to explain that responsibilities were shared and that the issues were not all his fault.

The ERA accepted that Ms James had carried out some form of investigation by visiting the café, taking photos, and putting the concerns to staff in the group chat. It also accepted that Mr Huntley-Byrne knew the standards expected when closing the café because he had done it before. But that did not cure the lack of a proper disciplinary process.

The dismissal by text message

On 18 November 2024, Mr Huntley-Byrne was unsure whether he was rostered to work because of the messages sent the previous day. He texted Ms James asking whether he was to work that day. Ms James replied, "no". Mr Huntley-Byrne then asked when she wanted him to work next. Ms James replied, "I don't. Sorry mate you blew it yesterday."

Ms James also drafted a formal letter headed "serious misconduct dismissal letter". That letter referred to issues including lateness and absenteeism, customer service expectations, dress and appearance, workplace rules, unsatisfactory conduct, serious misconduct, and termination without notice. Ms James said she posted the letter to Mr Huntley-Byrne's home address. Mr Huntley-Byrne said he never received it.

There was no dispute that Mr Huntley-Byrne had been dismissed. The issue was whether Dallison could justify that dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The disciplinary procedure was not followed

Mr Huntley-Byrne's employment agreement allowed termination without notice for serious misconduct only after a fair process. The employee handbook also contained a disciplinary procedure. Dallison accepted that the handbook and disciplinary procedure applied to his employment. The handbook said an employee would only be disciplined after careful investigation of the facts and an opportunity to present their side of the case.

The Authority found that Dallison did not follow all of the required steps. There was no disciplinary meeting convened about the 17 November close-up. Mr Huntley-Byrne was not given the same support-person opportunity that Dallison had given him at the October meeting. He was not given a proper opportunity to state his case before Dallison decided to end his employment.

The Authority was particularly clear that the group Messenger exchange was not a suitable substitute for a disciplinary process where dismissal was possible. Dallison had already shown that it knew how to arrange a better process because it had done so for the October meeting. It did not do so before dismissing Mr Huntley-Byrne.

The dismissal was unjustified

The ERA concluded that Mr Huntley-Byrne was unjustifiably dismissed by Dallison on 18 November 2024. The key point was procedural fairness. A fair and reasonable employer could have raised the close-up issues, provided the evidence relied upon, invited Mr Huntley-Byrne to a disciplinary meeting, allowed support or representation, considered his explanation, and then made a decision. Dallison did not do that.

This did not mean the close-up failures were irrelevant. The Authority later took Mr Huntley-Byrne's role in the situation into account when assessing contribution. But the existence of workplace concerns did not justify bypassing the ordinary minimum disciplinary protections.

Lost wages

Mr Huntley-Byrne claimed $8,299.20 gross for 13 weeks lost wages. This was calculated at $24 per hour and an average of 26.6 hours per week. Dallison argued that he had not actively looked for alternative work as quickly as he should have, but it did not produce supporting evidence for that argument.

Mr Huntley-Byrne gave evidence that he looked for work through Trade Me Jobs, Seek and Zeil, and that he worked with WINZ to try to find employment. He also provided supporting documents showing job applications. The ERA was satisfied that he took steps to minimise his loss. Before contribution, the Authority awarded $8,299.20 gross lost wages.

Compensation

Mr Huntley-Byrne said the dismissal caused him to lose his income and independence. He said he was affected by a 13-week WINZ stand-down period, struggled to pay for food, petrol and internet, and had to sell his car to pay expenses. He also described poor sleep, anxiety about the future, strain on his relationship and household, low energy, depression, and isolation.

The ERA accepted that he was adversely impacted by the ending of his employment. It assessed compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings at $15,000 before contribution.

Contribution reduction

Section 124 of the Employment Relations Act required the Authority to consider whether Mr Huntley-Byrne's own conduct contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. The ERA accepted that Mr Huntley-Byrne knew the standards required to close the café because he had done it before. It considered that a small reduction was appropriate because of his contribution to the situation on 17 November 2024.

The Authority fixed contribution at 10 percent. This reduced the lost wages from $8,299.20 gross to $7,469.28 gross, and reduced compensation from $15,000 to $13,500.

Wage and time records penalty

Mr Huntley-Byrne also sought a penalty because Dallison had failed to provide complete wage and time records when requested. The ERA accepted that this amounted to a breach of section 130(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

However, the Authority treated the breach as one justifying a nominal penalty. The information was incomplete when requested, but there was no claim that Mr Huntley-Byrne was owed unpaid wages or holiday pay requiring wage and time records for arrears calculations. The Authority considered that a $500 penalty was appropriate and ordered it to be paid to the Crown, not to Mr Huntley-Byrne.

Why this case matters

The determination is a useful example of an employer having a real workplace concern but still losing because the process was too informal. A group chat may be useful for operational communication, but it is not an appropriate platform for a disciplinary process where dismissal may result. The fact an employee answers in a chat thread does not mean the employee has had a fair disciplinary opportunity.

The case also shows that small employers are still expected to apply the core components of procedural fairness. Dallison had already demonstrated that it could invite Mr Huntley-Byrne to a meeting and allow a support person, because it had done that in October. The ERA therefore had no difficulty concluding that a better process was available before the November dismissal.

The 10 percent contribution reduction is also important. The Authority did not ignore the close-up failures. It accepted that Mr Huntley-Byrne knew what was expected when closing the café. But contribution reduced remedies; it did not rescue the dismissal. An employer still needs a fair process before deciding that employment should end.

Practical takeaways

• Do not dismiss by text message: a short text exchange is not a disciplinary process.
• A group chat is not a hearing: Messenger or staff chat threads are not a suitable forum for a serious misconduct process.
• Use the process you know how to use: if an employer has previously arranged a meeting with support-person rights, it should not abandon that approach when dismissal is possible.
• Communicate warnings clearly: a sealed warning letter that remains unopened may be difficult to rely on later.
• Close-up failures can still matter: an employee's fault may reduce remedies even where dismissal is unjustified.
• Mitigation evidence matters: job applications and WINZ engagement helped support the lost wages award.
• Keep and provide records: incomplete wage and time records can attract penalties even if no arrears are ultimately claimed.
• Contribution is separate from justification: an employee can contribute to the problem while the dismissal remains unjustified.

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.