BROWN v TIMBER TOWN HARVESTING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 117

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, TTH relied on an incident that had happened almost three weeks prior to his dismissal to allege his behaviour was wilful or deliberate. After that, TTH fully and fairly investigated the allegations against Mr Brown before dismissing him; b. Later, In its dismissal letter, TTH also justifies Mr Brown's dismissal by referring to past warnings. The determination records that TTH allowed Mr Brown to continue to work his usual hours without restriction for three weeks between the 25 August 2023 incident and his dismissal which was inconsistent with his misconduct being so serious TTH believed it justified his summary dismissal. The Authority notes that Although TTH says there were further incidents after the 25 August 2023 incident that damaged its trust and confidence in Mr Brown, including on 12 September, these incidents were not relied on in the dismissal letter. Ultimately, For all these reasons, The Authority found the termination letter sent on 17 September, which was the only record of Mr Campbell-Wilson's thought process at the time he made his decision to dismiss Mr Brown, did not accurately reflect the actual reasons for Mr Brown's dismissal. In the end, TTH should not have relied on the 25 August 2023 incident and disputed warnings to provide substantive justification for Mr Brown's summary dismissal.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are BROWN (employee) and TIMBER TOWN HARVESTING LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• TTH relied on an incident that had happened almost three weeks prior to his dismissal to allege his behaviour was wilful or deliberate.
• TTH fully and fairly investigated the allegations against Mr Brown before dismissing him; b.
• In its dismissal letter, TTH also justifies Mr Brown's dismissal by referring to past warnings.
• TTH allowed Mr Brown to continue to work his usual hours without restriction for three weeks between the 25 August 2023 incident and his dismissal which was inconsistent with his misconduct being so serious TTH believed it justified his summary dismissal.
• Although TTH says there were further incidents after the 25 August 2023 incident that damaged its trust and confidence in Mr Brown, including on 12 September, these incidents were not relied on in the dismissal letter.
• TTH should not have relied on the 25 August 2023 incident and disputed warnings to provide substantive justification for Mr Brown's summary dismissal.
• To the extent 4 Section 124 of the Act. that other alleged unsubstantiated incidents were taken into consideration in his dismissal, any element of contribution would be negligible.
• In terms of the history between the parties prior to the 25 August 2023 incident including alleged prior warnings, and the alleged incidents that occurred after 25 August 2023, I have concluded that TTH did not fully and fairly inform Mr Brown of what he needed to do to improve and maintain his employment.
• The alleged incidents date back to December 2022, some nine months prior to Mr Brown's dismissal.

Decision markers

• For all these reasons, The Authority found the termination letter sent on 17 September, which was the only record of Mr Campbell-Wilson's thought process at the time he made his decision to dismiss Mr Brown, did not accurately reflect the actual reasons for Mr Brown's dismissal.
• Looking at the process TTH followed, The Authority concluded it did not raise the concerns it had with Mr Brown before dismissing him, or if it did, it did not raise them in a way that ensured Mr Brown understood the gravity of its concerns, and how he needed to improve to ensure his continued employment.
• For all these reasons, The Authority found TTH has not acted as a fair and reasonable employer could.
• The Authority found Mr Brown did not contribute to the situation giving rise to his dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $15,000
• Lost wages: $10,017

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.

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.