ClickCease

BOYD v WARD [2025] NZERA 352 - The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld.

The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld. The Authority was satisfied that Mr Ward was aware of the date and time of the investigation meeting, and he should have attended but he chose not to.


BOYD v WARD [2025] NZERA 352

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 352
  • Registry: Christchurch
  • Parties: BOYD v WARD
  • Authority member: Peter van Keulen
  • Hearing date: 14 April 2025
  • Outcome: The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld.

Story in plain English

The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld.

In summary, The Authority was satisfied that Mr Ward was aware of the date and time of the investigation meeting, and he should have attended but he chose not to. After that, The Authority's investigation [10] I investigated Mr Boyd's claim by receiving written evidence and documents from him and holding an investigation meeting on 14 April 2025. Later, Analysis [20] Mr Boyd was dismissed by Mr Ward on 21 June 2024, by the letter and text message on that day.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
  • The parties are BOYD (employee) and WARD (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 14 April 2025.
  • Authority member: Peter van Keulen.

Key events described

  • The Authority was satisfied that Mr Ward was aware of the date and time of the investigation meeting, and he should have attended but he chose not to.
  • The Authority's investigation [10] I investigated Mr Boyd's claim by receiving written evidence and documents from him and holding an investigation meeting on 14 April 2025.
  • Analysis [20] Mr Boyd was dismissed by Mr Ward on 21 June 2024, by the letter and text message on that day.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $15,000, $15,000.00
  • Lost wages / arrears: $26.00, $12,168
  • Costs: Costs reserved.

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

  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Anztec made a senior assembly technician redundant in a small-business restructure. The ERA accepted the redundancy was genuine and the dismissal was substantively justified, but found significant good faith/consultation defects - including failure to proactively disclose information.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

A retail assistant was dismissed during a probation period after the employer said CCTV and KPI reports showed targets were not met. The ERA found the employer had not provided adequate POS and legal process training, yet relied on KPI results, and then terminated employment out of the blue by...

Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

A senior journalist/editor with 18 years at Radio Waatea was made redundant after a restructure merging English and Maori newsroom functions. The ERA accepted the restructure had genuine business reasons, but held the redundancy dismissal unjustified because key proposal information was not fairly shared, the employee was not clearly told his role was at risk until the termination day, and redeployment options were not consulted on. Orders: $24,230.77 lost wages (plus interest and KiwiSaver), $19,000 compensation, and a $1,500 Wages Protection Act penalty (half to the employee).

LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Browse topics