CALLEN v ALARON PRODUCTS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 165

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 (partly successful).

In summary, Mr Callen then identified an unjustified dismissal claim in an application to the Authority of 25 October 2023. After that, Mr Callen lodged an amended application in the Authority on 1 July 2024, seeking that the unjustified dismissal personal grievance be heard out of time. Later, The Authority then directed the parties to a preliminary investigation meeting that was held by an audio-visual link on 6 September 2024. The determination records that The letter then described a rationale for the proposal as based on the following objectives: To ensure we strengthen our engineering capability as a result of considerable growth meaning far greater emphasis on machinery, processes and the continued installation and maintenance of that equipment. The Authority notes that Mr Adams detailed his extensive human resource background at a senior level but professed to having no experience in investigating a bullying and harassment complaint. Ultimately, Alaron at the time, had no specific bullying and harassment policy. In the end, Mr Gray advised Mr Evans would represent the company at the meeting and if no suitable explanation was given by Mr Callen, he was facing potential disciplinary action up to and including his dismissal.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are CALLEN (employee) and ALARON PRODUCTS LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 20 February 2025.
• Authority member: David Beck.

Key events described

• Mr Callen then identified an unjustified dismissal claim in an application to the Authority of 25 October 2023.
• Mr Callen lodged an amended application in the Authority on 1 July 2024, seeking that the unjustified dismissal personal grievance be heard out of time.
• The Authority then directed the parties to a preliminary investigation meeting that was held by an audio-visual link on 6 September 2024.
• The letter then described a rationale for the proposal as based on the following objectives: To ensure we strengthen our engineering capability as a result of considerable growth meaning far greater emphasis on machinery, processes and the continued installation and maintenance of that equipment.
• Mr Adams detailed his extensive human resource background at a senior level but professed to having no experience in investigating a bullying and harassment complaint.
• Alaron at the time, had no specific bullying and harassment policy.
• Mr Gray advised Mr Evans would represent the company at the meeting and if no suitable explanation was given by Mr Callen, he was facing potential disciplinary action up to and including his dismissal.
• After the interview in an email of 22 May, Mr Adams (impliedly abandoning the disciplinary matter) invited Mr Callen to a meeting on 23 May, to communicate the (quoted wording omitted).
• Further and crucially, a worker must be afforded an opportunity to comment on any redundancy proposal prior to a decision being finalised.
• The Authority found that Alaron did not thoroughly or adequately investigate Mr Callen's complaints that he was the subject of bullying behaviour from his immediate manager.

Decision markers

• Finding [68] In this context, The Authority found the reason for selecting Mr Callen to be redundant was compromised by an ulterior motive.
• The Authority found that Mr Callen was unjustifiably dismissed and is entitled to the consideration of compensatory remedies.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation:$20,000
• Lost wages / arrears: $14,820
• 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

• Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• 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.