CHAND v ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2025] NZERA 574

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, Mr Chand claimed he was unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably dismissed by RCIL on 15 January 2023. After that, After RCIL lodged its statement in reply, a case management conference (CMC) was convened on 18 August 2023 where an initial investigation meeting was scheduled for 23 January 2024. Later, Both parties failed to properly lodge their evidence in accordance with the agreed timetable and as a result, the investigation meeting was rescheduled later where evidence was lodged by the parties and an initial investigation meeting was convened on 17 July 2024. The determination records that A further investigation meeting took place on 6 December 2024 where only Mr Chandra was able to give evidence. The Authority notes that As part of this conversation, Mr Chand alleged Rohit Chand dismissed him from his employment. Ultimately, Following the conversation Mr Chand sent a follow-up text message to Rohit Chand asking to provide him with confirmation of his dismissal by letter. In the end, On 16 January 2023 Rahul Chand on behalf of RCIL and Rohit Chand emailed Mr Chand explaining he was not dismissed and sought his return to work.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are CHAND (employee) and ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 18 July and 6 December 2024 (2 days).
• Authority member: Alex Leulu.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Mr Chand claimed he was unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably dismissed by RCIL on 15 January 2023.
• The Authority's investigation The initial delays in investigating the matter [2] Mr Chand lodged his statement of claim with the Authority on 22 May 2023.
• After RCIL lodged its statement in reply, a case management conference (CMC) was convened on 18 August 2023 where an initial investigation meeting was scheduled for 23 January 2024.
• Both parties failed to properly lodge their evidence in accordance with the agreed timetable and as a result, the investigation meeting was rescheduled later where evidence was lodged by the parties and an initial investigation meeting was convened on 17 July 2024.
• A further investigation meeting took place on 6 December 2024 where only Mr Chandra was able to give evidence.
• As part of this conversation, Mr Chand alleged Rohit Chand dismissed him from his employment.
• Following the conversation Mr Chand sent a follow-up text message to Rohit Chand asking to provide him with confirmation of his dismissal by letter.
• On 16 January 2023 Rahul Chand on behalf of RCIL and Rohit Chand emailed Mr Chand explaining he was not dismissed and sought his return to work.
• Mr Chand and RCIL continued to exchange emails about the 15 January discussion and whether Mr Chand was dismissed by the company.
• In his unsworn witness statement, Rohit Chand claimed he did not dismiss Mr Chand but during his phone discussion he said he reminded Mr Chand of his obligations to attend work.
• Based on the available evidence it was clear Rohit Chand represented RCIL in his conversation with Mr Chand during the 15 January discussion and The Authority was satisfied he had verbally dismissed Mr Chand during the phone call.
• Accordingly, Mr Chand was unjustifiably dismissed by RCIL because of his dismissal by phone call during the 15 January discussion.
• His sudden dismissal meant his wife undertook the burden of meeting rent and daily expenses by working double shifts.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• Based on the available evidence it was clear Rohit Chand represented RCIL in his conversation with Mr Chand during the 15 January discussion and The Authority was satisfied he had verbally dismissed Mr Chand during the phone call.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $4,000

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.