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.

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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.

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.