DE KLERK v WAIKANAE CHARTERED CLUB INCORPORATED [2025] NZERA 429

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

Story in plain English

A penalty determination was made.

In summary, He also says the alleged theft occurred while he was still employed, because while his shift may have formally ended, he remained at work for another staff member's farewell, then returned to the kitchen where he cleaned up before taking his and Mr van der Merwe's possessions and leaving through a staff-only door. After that, The Club raised the allegation of theft with Mr de Klerk after his employment had ended, following his resignation, and then Mr Morris making the complaint to the Police. Later, Mr de Klerk resigned on or about 19 December 2024, after Mr van der Merwe was dismissed by the Club on 19 December 2024; b. The determination records that Mr Morris emailed, on behalf of the Club, Mr de Klerk on 24 December 2024 raising an allegation of theft of Club property, indicating that if any Club property removed was not returned by 29 December 2024, then a complaint may be made to the Police; e. The Authority notes that Mr de Klerk replied by email to Mr Morris and Mr Cook later on 24 December 2024 rejecting the allegations of theft and advising he had taken items owned by himself and Mr van der Merwe only; and f. Ultimately, Based on the sequence of events, The Authority found that Mr de Klerk's claims are founded on actions which occurred after his employment with the Club had ended, following his resignation. In the end, The Club and Mr Morris' actions5 which Mr de Klerk complains about primarily relate to the allegation of theft and the complaint to the Police.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are DE KLERK (employee) and WAIKANAE CHARTERED CLUB INCORPORATED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: nan.
• Authority member: Shane Kinley.

Key events described

• He also says the alleged theft occurred while he was still employed, because while his shift may have formally ended, he remained at work for another staff member's farewell, then returned to the kitchen where he cleaned up before taking his and Mr van der Merwe's possessions and leaving through a staff-only door.
• The Club raised the allegation of theft with Mr de Klerk after his employment had ended, following his resignation, and then Mr Morris making the complaint to the Police.
• Mr de Klerk resigned on or about 19 December 2024, after Mr van der Merwe was dismissed by the Club on 19 December 2024; b.
• Mr Morris emailed, on behalf of the Club, Mr de Klerk on 24 December 2024 raising an allegation of theft of Club property, indicating that if any Club property removed was not returned by 29 December 2024, then a complaint may be made to the Police; e.
• Mr de Klerk replied by email to Mr Morris and Mr Cook later on 24 December 2024 rejecting the allegations of theft and advising he had taken items owned by himself and Mr van der Merwe only; and f.
• Based on the sequence of events, The Authority found that Mr de Klerk's claims are founded on actions which occurred after his employment with the Club had ended, following his resignation.
• The Club and Mr Morris' actions5 which Mr de Klerk complains about primarily relate to the allegation of theft and the complaint to the Police.

Decision markers

• Based on the sequence of events, The Authority found that Mr de Klerk's claims are founded on actions which occurred after his employment with the Club had ended, following his resignation.
• The relevant relationship is that of vendor and purchaser, not employer and employee Summary of outcome [31] The Authority found Andre de Klerk has not established that he has an employment relationship problem with the Waikanae Chartered Club Incorporated (the Club), John Cook or Terrance Morris.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Costs: Costs reserved.

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

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• 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.