BALI v R1i TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [2025] NZERA 409

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, He was dismissed from his employment on 7 August 2024 during a video conference meeting using the Webex platform (the Webex meeting). After that, R1i confirmed its decision to dismiss Mr Bali in a letter to him dated 7 August 2024. Later, A copy of the Authority's written directions (including the direction to attend mediation), together with a copy of the notice of investigation, as well as a further copy of the statement of problem were delivered by courier to R1i's registered address for service on 10 March 2025. The determination records that The Authority's email advised that in the absence of a response from R1i, the investigation meeting would be proceeding, regardless of whether or not R1i was in attendance. The Authority notes that On 6 August 2024 he said he received an email invitation to attend a Webex meeting. Ultimately, Mr Bali said that at the Webex meeting he was told he (quoted wording omitted). In the end, Mr Bali then received a letter from R1i dated 7 August 2024 (the dismissal letter), which sets out that his (quoted wording omitted), and confirmed his employment would terminate four weeks later, on 4 September 2024.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are BALI (employee) and R1i TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 9 July 2025.
• Authority member: Jeremy Lynch.

Key events described

• He was dismissed from his employment on 7 August 2024 during a video conference meeting using the Webex platform (the Webex meeting).
• R1i confirmed its decision to dismiss Mr Bali in a letter to him dated 7 August 2024.
• A copy of the Authority's written directions (including the direction to attend mediation), together with a copy of the notice of investigation, as well as a further copy of the statement of problem were delivered by courier to R1i's registered address for service on 10 March 2025.
• The Authority's email advised that in the absence of a response from R1i, the investigation meeting would be proceeding, regardless of whether or not R1i was in attendance.
• On 6 August 2024 he said he received an email invitation to attend a Webex meeting.
• Mr Bali said that at the Webex meeting he was told he (quoted wording omitted).
• Mr Bali then received a letter from R1i dated 7 August 2024 (the dismissal letter), which sets out that his (quoted wording omitted), and confirmed his employment would terminate four weeks later, on 4 September 2024.
• Mr Bali's dismissal [33] Due to its lack of engagement in the Authority's investigation, the exact basis for R1i's decision to dismiss Mr Bali is unclear.
• The lack of clarity stems in part from R1i's use of the words 'probation period' in the dismissal letter.
• As set out above, Mr Bali attended the Webex meeting on 7 August 2024, at which he was dismissed.
• Mr Bali's employment was terminated without warning during the Webex meeting of 7 August 2024.
• Given Mr Bali was required to lodge a statement of problem, a witness statement, as well as attend the investigation meeting, and to correspond with the Authority during the course of this matter, The Authority was satisfied that $1200.00 is a fair and reasonable contribution towards his representation costs.

Decision markers

• R1i's failure to meet any of the minimum procedural fairness tests in s 103A(3), or comply with the obligations under s 4(1A)(c) of the Act renders Mr Bali's dismissal unjustifiable.
• Mr Bali has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
• Given Mr Bali was required to lodge a statement of problem, a witness statement, as well as attend the investigation meeting, and to correspond with the Authority during the course of this matter, The Authority was satisfied that $1200.00 is a fair and reasonable contribution towards his representation costs.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $17,500.00
• Holiday pay: $4,166.66
• Costs: $1200.00, $71.55, Costs considered.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.