ClickCease

Mr Ward dismissed Mr Boyd by letter and text message on 21 June 2024 and then did not participate in the ERA investigation despite being aware of the investigation meeting. The claim proceeded on Mr Boyd's evidence and documents.

The short answer

The ERA upheld Mr Boyd's unjustified-dismissal grievance. It awarded $15,000 compensation and $12,168 in lost wages, together with a further $26 wage amount; costs were reserved.


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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics