ClickCease

Ms Brennan's employment with Stella 2020 ended on 30 July 2024 without a fair disciplinary or dismissal process. The employer did not participate effectively in the ERA investigation, which proceeded on the evidence available to the Authority.

The short answer

The ERA found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unjustified. It awarded $22,000 compensation, $4,340 lost wages and $1,085 notice pay.


BRENNAN v STELLA 2020 LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 449

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 449
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: BRENNAN v STELLA 2020 LIMITED and Ors
  • Authority member: Rowan Anderson
  • Hearing date: 3 July 2025
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, The Authority's Investigation [6] A case management conference was held on 13 March 2025 at which timetable directions were issued for the lodgement of written witness statements and the convening of an investigation meeting. After that, An investigation meeting was held in Wellington on 3 July 2025 and proceeded by way of formal proof. Later, The Authority accepted all of Ms Brennan's evidence and The Authority found that Ms Brennan was dismissed from her employment on 30 July 2024 without justification. The determination records that The Authority found that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unjustified. The Authority notes that The Authority was satisfied that Ms Brennan was adversely impacted by the dismissal and actions of Stella. Ultimately, Payment of wages and notice period [40] Ms Brennan's statement of problem sought payment of wages for the period between 30 July 2024, the date on which [the Authority] have found she was dismissed, and that date on which Stella provided written notice of the dismissal, that being 13 August 2024. In the end, I have found that Ms Brennan was unjustifiably dismissed from her employment on 30 July 2024.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are BRENNAN (employee) and STELLA 2020 LIMITED and Ors (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 3 July 2025.
  • Authority member: Rowan Anderson.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • The Authority's Investigation [6] A case management conference was held on 13 March 2025 at which timetable directions were issued for the lodgement of written witness statements and the convening of an investigation meeting.
  • On 13 March 2025, notwithstanding I was already satisfied that the respondents had been served with the relevant documents including the statement of problem, I directed that service could be made on the individual respondents by email.
  • On 18 March 2025, Ms Nicoletatos phoned the Authority.
  • An investigation meeting was held in Wellington on 3 July 2025 and proceeded by way of formal proof.
  • Also on 13 August 2024, Stella, in response, provided Ms Brennan's representative a letter purporting to provide formal notice of termination in accordance with the 90 day trial provision in the IEA and advising she would be paid one weeks pay.
  • I have found that Ms Brennan was unjustifiably dismissed from her employment on 30 July 2024.
  • Payment of wages and notice period [40] Ms Brennan's statement of problem sought payment of wages for the period between 30 July 2024, the date on which [the Authority] having found she was dismissed, and that date on which Stella provided written notice of the dismissal, that being 13 August 2024.
  • The Authority having found that Ms Brennan was unjustifiably dismissed from her employment on 30 July 2024.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • Further, The Authority found Ms Brennan was never paid for the relevant notice period. 1 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 103A.
  • The Authority accepted all of Ms Brennan's evidence and The Authority found that Ms Brennan was dismissed from her employment on 30 July 2024 without justification.
  • The Authority found that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unjustified.
  • The Authority was satisfied that Ms Brennan was adversely impacted by the dismissal and actions of Stella.
  • The Authority was satisfied that Ms Brennan lost wages as a result of her personal grievance and the actions of Stella.
  • Having regard to the proactive steps appropriately taken by Ms Brennan, The Authority found that the loss was limited to five weeks wages.
  • That sum was not paid, and The Authority found that the sum of $1,085 is due to Ms Brennan as payment of her notice period.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $22,000
  • Lost wages / arrears: $4,340
  • Notice period pay: $1,085

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

  • 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.
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, 90 Day Trial
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Browse topics