ClickCease

Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 - summary dismissal held unjustified; reinstatement declined; $20,000 compensation after contribution

A long-serving firefighter was summarily dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The ERA held the conduct relied on did not meet the serious misconduct threshold and the dismissal was unjustified. Reinstatement was declined as not reasonable or workable. Remedies included $25,000 compensation...


Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612

This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 (Christchurch registry, Member David G Beck).

Outcome at a glance

  • Unjustified dismissal: the Authority held Mr Morris was unjustifiably dismissed and that a fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded he engaged in serious misconduct.
  • Reinstatement: declined (relationship too broken; not reasonable or workable in all the circumstances).
  • Compensation: $25,000 assessed for hurt and humiliation, reduced by 20% contribution to $20,000 payable within 28 days (no deductions).
  • Lost remuneration: six days ordinary time pay (after offsets for one month pay in lieu of notice and ACC payments).
  • Costs: reserved.

Case details

Citation [2025] NZERA 612
ERA registry Christchurch
Member David G Beck
Case number 3373783
Role Volunteer Support Officer (VSO), Greymouth
Dismissal Summary dismissal on 7 April 2025
Investigation meeting 30 June, 1 July 2025 and 15 August 2025 (Christchurch)
Date of determination 30 September 2025

What happened (chronology)

  • 11 March 2024: Mr Morris introduced himself to a volunteer brigade ("Brigade X") and made comments comparing the physical strengths of men and women in a firefighting environment.
  • 7 June 2024: after a call-out, Brigade X attended the Greymouth station for gear swap. A dispute arose about the female volunteer firefighter's suit sizing. The Authority later described the interaction as significantly insensitive and consistent with "workplace incivility", but short of bullying or harassment.
  • 10 June 2024: a further exchange occurred at Brigade X's station about the sizing issue. The complainant said she felt intimidated; Mr Morris said he did not intend that. After leaving the station, he sat in his vehicle across the road for about 10 to 15 minutes, which was treated by the employer as potentially intimidatory.
  • June 2024 onwards: complaints were escalated and the matter moved into an independent investigation process.
  • 18 December 2024: Fairway issued its final findings report. It found the introductory speech allegation was not sustained as incivility/bullying/harassment/victimisation, but the gear and station allegations were sustained as breaches of the Code and "workplace incivility".
  • 7 April 2025: Mr Morris was summarily dismissed after a lengthy investigation period and agreed paid leave.
  • 30 September 2025: the Authority issued this merits determination and remedies.

Key legal issues the ERA addressed

  • Investigation quality: whether the independent investigation was "full and fair". The Authority found the investigation was broadly consistent with the terms of reference and was thorough, despite some criticisms (leading questions; confusion about burden; and scope widening to include the introductory mihi).
  • Justification test: whether dismissal met the standard in section 103A (fair and reasonable employer), assessed in context of good faith obligations.
  • Serious misconduct threshold: whether the established conduct was capable of being characterised as serious misconduct (and if so, whether summary dismissal was warranted in all the circumstances).
  • Remedies and contribution: reinstatement (primary remedy where practicable and reasonable), lost wages/lost remuneration, compensation for hurt and humiliation, and whether remedies should be reduced for contributory conduct.

Findings on investigation and decision-making

Investigation: the Authority accepted Fairway produced useful factual findings and that the process, overall, allowed the decision-maker to then evaluate policy breaches and seriousness. The Authority also recorded that, when asked directly at the investigation meeting, Mr Morris said he could not think of anything unfair about the Fairway investigation "in a nutshell".

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The Authority's core conclusion was that FENZ did not reasonably establish that Mr Morris's overall conduct met the threshold of serious misconduct. The Authority considered the conduct was more consistent with an emerging performance or misconduct issue related to communication style, which should have been addressed earlier through counselling and/or a performance plan rather than summary dismissal.

Threshold analysis

  • 7 June gear incident: insensitive handling, but the Authority found no reasonable employer could treat it as serious misconduct in isolation.
  • 10 June station incident: ill-judged persistence about sizing; the complainant was distressed; but the Authority found it was not reasonable to conclude serious misconduct from that exchange alone, and the employer could not conclusively treat the "waiting across the road" as intimidatory merely because the complainant was upset.
  • Overall: FENZ could not fairly and reasonably conclude serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal.

Reinstatement (declined)

Mr Morris sought reinstatement. The Authority approached reinstatement as the primary remedy, but emphasised it must be both practicable and reasonable. Although the position remained unfilled, the Authority declined reinstatement on the basis that the relationship was too broken and reintegration would likely be unworkable, including due to ongoing trust issues and the operational reality of supporting volunteer brigades.

Practical note: This part of the decision is a reminder that even where dismissal is found unjustified, reinstatement can still be refused where the Authority is not objectively satisfied it is reasonable and workable in all the circumstances.

Remedies awarded

Compensation for hurt and humiliation

The Authority assessed compensation at $25,000 for the impact of dismissal, including loss of mana and the consequences in a small community. It then found contributory conduct and reduced the compensatory award by 20% to $20,000.

  • Payable: within 28 days of issue of the determination
  • Basis: s 123(1)(c)(i) Employment Relations Act 2000
  • Deductions: none (ordered without deductions)

Lost remuneration

Mr Morris remained on ACC earnings-related compensation (80% of normal pay) after dismissal until 15 June 2025, and he was paid one month full pay in lieu of notice. The Authority treated ACC payments and the notice payment as offsets and concluded there was no lost wages up to the end of June 2025.

Exercising discretion, the Authority effectively arrived at six days ordinary time remuneration payable (at the rate applicable on termination). The Authority did not make any additional award of lost remuneration.

  • Basis: ordered as lost remuneration (six days ordinary time)
  • Offsets considered: notice pay and ACC payments

Costs

Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves; if not resolved, the applicant could file a costs memorandum within 28 days.

Practical takeaways

  • Do not conflate incivility with serious misconduct: where conduct is better characterised as communication or relationship failure, performance management is often the appropriate tool, not summary dismissal.
  • Keep investigation scope tight: terms of reference matter. If the scope changes, ensure the employee is clearly informed and given full opportunity to respond.
  • Decision-maker focus: even where an independent investigation is broadly fair, the final disciplinary decision must still meet the s 103A standard.
  • Reinstatement is not automatic: it remains the primary remedy in principle, but can be declined where the employment relationship is objectively too broken and reintegration is unworkable.
  • Offsets in lost wages: ACC payments and notice payments can materially reduce (or eliminate) lost wage awards.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button to open it in a new tab.

Open [2025] NZERA 612 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with a PG for unjustified dismissal? We can help with strategy, drafting, settlement, mediation, and representation in the ERA. (PG = Personal Grievance; ERA = Employment Relations Authority.)

Contact Employer Case Form Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form

Unfair Dismissal Cases
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Ilalio Solomona v Auckland Council [2026] NZERA 418 - conflict of interest dismissal unjustified

Auckland Council summarily dismissed a fitness instructor over an undeclared personal-training business and three social-media videos filmed at a Council leisure centre. The ERA held that the Council relied on policies which did not in substance fit the alleged conflict, failed to raise the contractual obligations it might have relied on, and pursued discipline over matters known long beforehand without first discussing them in good faith. The dismissal was unjustified. Remedies were reduced by 10 percent for the employee's use of customers and the workplace to promote his own business...

Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall's Northland asbestos-surveyor and mould-testing role was genuinely disestablished for commercial reasons, but Consultex Company Limited failed to consult in good faith. It did not meaningfully answer Mr Hall's request for financial information, failed to engage with his redeployment question, and sent a response that strongly suggested the decision had already been made before consultation closed. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and ordered $8,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution...

Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was summarily dismissed by Talley's Limited after a complaint connected with an election for a health and safety representative. The ERA found Talley's had not properly investigated the complaint, had not clearly set out the allegations or supporting information, had not given Mr Potter a fair opportunity to respond, and could not reasonably conclude that he had bullied, intimidated, or attempted to influence the vote. Mr Potter was awarded $20,000 compensation and $7,226.25 gross lost remuneration, no contribution was found...

Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett was required to resign before holiday leave and then re-employed after the break. The ERA held that Polygon had manufactured the termination to minimise Holidays Act liabilities, meaning her employment was continuous. It also found a later redundancy dismissal unjustified because the business sale remained uncertain, redeployment was not properly considered, relevant information was withheld, and no contractual notice was provided. The Authority ordered compensation, lost wages, notice pay, Holidays Act entitlements, wage arrears, interest and a penalty...

Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

The Department of Corrections dismissed Principal Corrections Officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi after he used force on a prisoner and did not report the incident. Although he had been acquitted of assault on the basis of self-defence, Corrections revisited the same factual questions and reached the opposite conclusions. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because Corrections blurred the criminal and employment issues, did not properly identify and assess the remaining policy breaches, allowed a conflicted decision maker to continue, and relied on conduct that was not put as an allegation. Reinstatement was declined, but the Authority ordered $17,000 compensation and $19,882.50 lost wages after a 15 percent contribution reduction...

Browse topics