ClickCease

Mr Cully resigned from The Work Shop Limited and alleged the employer's breaches were serious enough to amount to constructive dismissal. He also sought unpaid wages and compensation, requiring the ERA to determine whether his resignation was legally attributable to the employer's conduct.

The short answer

The ERA accepted material parts of Mr Cully's claim and made a monetary order of $12,000. The determination applied the constructive-dismissal requirement that an employer breach must actually cause the resignation rather than treating resignation itself as proof of dismissal.


CULLY v THE WORK SHOP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2025] NZERA 507

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 507
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: CULLY v THE WORK SHOP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
  • Authority member: Davinnia Tan
  • Hearing date: 16 January 2025
  • Outcome: A costs determination was made.

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, Following the conclusion of the Authority's investigation meeting, TWSL was liquidated on 4 February 2025. After that, He has been unjustifiably dismissed; [3] He seeks the sum of $3,047.62 for unpaid wages and compensation of $12,500. Later, Over the next few days when his salary remained unpaid, Mr Cully sent an email on 29 July 2024 to Ms Gollan (including his reporting manager, Andrew Hodgkinson, the Chief Technical Officer), asking to be paid in full and advised he was taking annual leave from 29 July 2024 to 1 August 2024. The determination records that Ms Gollan's email of 21 August 2024 was the first time that it was alleged that he abandoned his employment notwithstanding that leave had been approved and set out on his payslip. The Authority notes that The correct approach4 in constructive dismissal cases where breaches are alleged is to firstly conclude whether the resignation has been caused by a breach of duty on the part of the employer. Ultimately, Mr Cully has the burden of establishing that the resignation was a dismissal. In the end, In response, she emailed him on 21 August 2024 and stated, (quoted wording omitted) As Ms Gollan did not partake in proceedings, I was unable to ask her for reasons for that allegation.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are CULLY (employee) and THE WORK SHOP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 16 January 2025.
  • Authority member: Davinnia Tan.

Key events described

  • Following the conclusion of the Authority's investigation meeting, TWSL was liquidated on 4 February 2025.
  • He has been unjustifiably dismissed; [3] He seeks the sum of $3,047.62 for unpaid wages and compensation of $12,500.
  • Over the next few days when his salary remained unpaid, Mr Cully sent an email on 29 July 2024 to Ms Gollan (including his reporting manager, Andrew Hodgkinson, the Chief Technical Officer), asking to be paid in full and advised he was taking annual leave from 29 July 2024 to 1 August 2024.
  • Ms Gollan's email of 21 August 2024 was the first time that it was alleged that he abandoned his employment notwithstanding that leave had been approved and set out on his payslip.
  • The correct approach4 in constructive dismissal cases where breaches are alleged is to firstly conclude whether the resignation has been caused by a breach of duty on the part of the employer.
  • Mr Cully has the burden of establishing that the resignation was a dismissal.
  • In response, she emailed him on 21 August 2024 and stated, (quoted wording omitted) As Ms Gollan did not partake in proceedings, I was unable to ask her for reasons for that allegation.
  • However he stated that the responses from Ms Gollan and the refusal to mediate their dispute had led him to believe he was no longer welcome and felt he had no choice but to resign by the end of his leave (without pay) period on 30 August 2024.

Decision markers

  • The Authority was satisfied that Mr Cully resigned on 30 August 2024 because of the breaches set out above.
  • Accordingly The Authority found that his claim for unjustified (constructive) dismissal is made out on these grounds.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Other payments: $12,000.00

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

  • Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Constructive Dismissal
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Browse topics