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
Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Lillian Shorter v Waiheke Island Supported Homes Trust [2026] NZERA 54 - summary dismissal for alleged sleeping on night shift held unjustified; six months lost wages ordered and $18,750 compensation

ERA held a night shift recovery support worker was unjustifiably dismissed after video evidence of sleeping was relied on, in circumstances where night staff had a legitimate expectation they could sleep during combined breaks and management had not clearly changed that practice. Reinstatement was declined, but the...

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

CAMERON ROWETH v MT OUTDOORS LIMITED [2026] NZERA 50 - redundancy dismissal held unjustified due to no consultation on selection; $15,000 compensation, $5,400 lost remuneration, $1,800 notice

ERA held a fixed-term seasonal worker was unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy because the employer decided to select him for redundancy before meeting him and did not consult. Although the business case to disestablish one fixed-term role was accepted as genuine, the selection process was...

Julie Curtis v Affordable UK Caravans and Parts Limited [2026] NZERA 46 - constructive dismissal after employer refused wages and delayed return; $25,000 compensation

ERA held the employee was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed when the employer told her not to return to work until mid-January and refused to pay her contracted hours. Orders included $25,000 compensation, $8,320 reimbursement, wage and holiday pay arrears with interest, and penalties split between the employee and the Crown.

Browse topics