Colin Bradshaw v Ocean To Alps Removal & Storage Limited [2025] NZERA 636

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination involving a disputed "dismissal" on a removal job, an overtime/pay dispute, and an unjustified disadvantage finding. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

Ocean to Alps Removal & Storage Limited operates an Allied Movers business in Timaru dealing with furniture removal.

Colin Bradshaw was employed by Ocean to Alps in the Allied Movers business from 18 January 2024 as a driver and removalist.

Over the course of two days, 22 and 23 April 2024, Mr Bradshaw became upset by events at work, including requirements to undertake extra work at short notice and not being paid correctly for the hours worked in the previous week. This was reported to Richard Strowger, the shareholder and Director of Ocean to Alps and effectively the general manager of the Allied Movers business, as Mr Bradshaw losing his temper, being angry and abusive, and threatening to leave work. Mr Strowger intervened on 22 April 2024 through a representative of a labour hire agency that Ocean to Alps used and then he attended on a customer removal site himself on the 23 April 2024 confronting Mr Bradshaw.

The result of Mr Strowger confronting Mr Bradshaw was that Mr Bradshaw left the site; Mr Bradshaw believed he had been dismissed by Mr Strowger and Mr Strowger believed Mr Bradshaw had resigned.

At the heart of the dispute was a confrontation on a customer removal site on 23 April 2024 between the employee and the director, Richard Strowger, and a separate dispute about whether the employee had been paid correctly for the week ending 21 April 2024.

This employment relationship problem arises out of the confrontation between Mr Bradshaw and Mr Strowger and a dispute over Mr Bradshaw's pay for the week ending 21 April 2024. The elements of this employment relationship problem are: (a) A personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal, with Mr Bradshaw saying he was dismissed by Mr Strowger on 23 April 2025. (b) A personal grievance for unjustified action causing disadvantage, with Mr Bradshaw saying Ocean to Alps failed to engage with him correctly over the disputed pay amount for the week ending 21 April 2024. (c) Wage arrears for the alleged underpayment of wages for the week ending 21 April 2024. The Authority's investigation

Key issues the Authority decided

• Unjustified dismissal: was there a dismissal at the initiative of the employer on 23 April 2024 (or did the employee resign)?
• Unjustified disadvantage (s 103(1)(b)): did the employer take unjustifiable action that disadvantaged the employee (including how it dealt with the pay dispute and what occurred after the confrontation)?
• Wage arrears: was the employee underpaid for the week ending 21 April 2024 (and if so, how much)?

What the Authority found about dismissal

The Authority first dealt with whether there was a dismissal at all. It restated that dismissal requires an employer-initiated termination (a 'sending away') and the onus is on the employee to prove that. Where words are equivocal, the test is objective: was it reasonable for someone in the employee's position to think their employment had been terminated.

Applying these two elements of dismissal, I must determine what was said in the confrontation on 23 April 2024 and decide: 1 Wellington Clerical Union v Greenwich [1983] ACJ 965 (AC). 2 See for example, No 1 Autohaus Ltd v Wrigley EmpC Auckland AEC75/97, 18 July 1997 where the words "Good God, look at you, you can just go" were held to be a dismissal. 3 Cornish Truck & Van Limited v Gildenhuys [2019] NZEmpC 6 at [45]. (a) if Mr Bradshaw has established that this was an unequivocal sending away by Mr Strowger; or, if not (b) were the actions of Mr Strowger such that it would be reasonable for a person in Mr Bradshaw's position to interpret that as a sending away. What happened?

Ocean to Alps did not dismiss Mr Bradshaw. As a result, Mr Bradshaw cannot establish a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. Analysis - Unjustified action causing disadvantage The test for an unjustified action personal grievance

Ocean to Alps did not unjustifiably dismiss Mr Bradshaw.

Practical note: ERA "dismissal" disputes often come down to whether the employer said or did something that objectively amounts to a "sending away". If the words are ambiguous, the surrounding circumstances and how a reasonable employee would understand them matter.

Unjustified disadvantage and the pay dispute

Although the dismissal claim failed, the Authority then considered the unjustified disadvantage grievance under s 103(1)(b). It looked at whether the employer's actions affected the employee's employment or conditions to his disadvantage, and whether those actions were unjustified.

An unjustifiable disadvantage personal grievance is set out in section 103(1)(b) of the Act. This section provides that an employee may have a personal grievance where the employee's employment or any condition of employment is or was affected to the employee's disadvantage by some unjustifiable action by their employer.

I can deal with this aspect easily. I accept that Mr Bradshaw raised concerns about the overtime he worked, and the payment received, and he requested a meeting - noting that when he requested the meeting Mr Bradshaw was still an employee as there had not been a dismissal, nor had he resigned. Ocean to Alps did not respond to Mr Bradshaw's request. The failure to deal with Mr Bradshaw's concerns was unjustified and this caused a disadvantage to Mr Bradshaw's employment. Mr Bradshaw has a personal grievance for unjustified action causing disadvantage to his employment. Other actions by Ocean to Alps to consider

Standing back, I am satisfied that this is the appropriate outcome. I am not satisfied that Mr Bradshaw was dismissed by Oceans to Alps, but Ocean to Alps failed to engage properly and fairly with Mr Bradshaw over concerns about his behaviour on 22 and 23 April 2024 and the hours he had recorded for work in the week ending 21 April. Those failings were unjustified and caused a disadvantage to Mr Bradshaw. Mr Bradshaw is entitled to remedies for these actions by Ocean to Alps. Remedies

Remedies, wage arrears, and costs

Compensation: The Authority treated the case as lower-level harm and made a compensatory award for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings arising from the unjustified actions.

Pursuant to sections 123 and 128 of the Act if an employee has a personal grievance and they have lost remuneration because of that grievance then they are entitled to their actual lost remuneration or three months ordinary time remuneration. The key issue at the outset being whether the employee has lost remuneration because of the grievance, and the further issues then arising relate to quantification of the loss.

Mr Bradshaw is not entitled to any lost remuneration. Contribution

Contribution: The Authority found no blameworthy conduct by the employee that contributed to the unjustified actions, so no reduction was applied.

I find that Mr Bradshaw did not contribute to the unjustified actions. There is no basis for Mr Bradshaw's compensation to be reduced. 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 124. 7 Xtreme Dining Ltd v Dewar [2016] NZEmpC 136. Wage arrears

Wage arrears: The Authority found the employee worked 49 hours for the week ending 21 April 2024, was paid for 40 hours, and was owed 9 hours wages. It ordered wage arrears for 9 hours plus holiday pay at 8% of those wages.

Based on the evidence from my investigation and the submissions of Mr Bradshaw's advocate. I find that: (a) Mr Bradshaw worked 49 hours for the week ending 21 April 2024. (b) Ocean to Alps paid Mr Bradshaw for 40 hours for the week ending 21 April 2024. (c) Mr Bradshaw is owed 9 hours pay for the week ending 21 April 2024. Summary and orders

This employment relationship problem is resolved in favour of Mr Bradshaw and Ocean to Alps is ordered to pay Mr Bradshaw: (a) $15,000 for compensation pursuant to s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. (b) Wage arrears for 9 hours work plus holiday pay for this work calculated at 8% of the wages. Costs

Costs: Costs were reserved and the Authority set a timetable for any costs memorandum (28 days for the applicant; 14 days for a reply).

Costs are reserved. The parties are encouraged to resolve any issue of costs between themselves.

If the parties are unable to resolve costs, and an Authority determination on costs is needed, Mr Bradshaw may lodge, and then should serve, a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the date of this determination. From the date of service of that memorandum Ocean to Alps will then have 14 days to lodge any reply memorandum. On request by either party, an extension of time for the parties to continue to negotiate costs between themselves may be granted.

Orders made

• $15,000 compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i).
• Wage arrears for 9 hours work plus holiday pay at 8% of the wages for those 9 hours.
• Costs reserved (costs timetable set in the determination).

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.