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
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.
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.
Contact Employer Case Form Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form
Unfair Dismissal Cases![Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)