DQJ v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2025] NZERA 365

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, At an interim stage the Authority did not reinstate DQJ.2 DQJ challenged that determination successfully - the Employment Court interim reinstated DQJ to the payroll pending a substantive investigation by the Authority.3 [8] The substantive investigation meeting occurred on 15 and 16 April 2025. After that, She also arranged a meeting on 27 April 2023 between DQJ and colleague A to reset the relationship - sending a follow up email about agreed actions like respecting one another. Later, The Team Lead wrote to DQJ in a letter dated 15 September 2023 summarising what was discussed during their meeting. The determination records that Supporting the lateness concern, the letter attached a door access report that was said to show DQJ had arrived late to work 77% of the time in the past 11 months (since October 2023) and by more than 10 minutes 45% of the time. The Authority notes that On 25 September 2024, IR wrote to DQJ with its decision to dismiss on notice. Ultimately, This included phone calls and messages the Team Leader considered inappropriate and ultimately led to her contacting the Domain Lead seeking to resign. In the end, She says as it was not raised again, she thought IR were happy enough with her work (until receiving a letter shortly before her dismissal).

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are DQJ (employee) and COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 15 and 16 April 2025 (2 Days).
• Authority member: Lucia Vincent.

Key events described

• At an interim stage the Authority did not reinstate DQJ.2 DQJ challenged that determination successfully - the Employment Court interim reinstated DQJ to the payroll pending a substantive investigation by the Authority.3 [8] The substantive investigation meeting occurred on 15 and 16 April 2025.
• She also arranged a meeting on 27 April 2023 between DQJ and colleague A to reset the relationship - sending a follow up email about agreed actions like respecting one another.
• The Team Lead wrote to DQJ in a letter dated 15 September 2023 summarising what was discussed during their meeting.
• Supporting the lateness concern, the letter attached a door access report that was said to show DQJ had arrived late to work 77% of the time in the past 11 months (since October 2023) and by more than 10 minutes 45% of the time.
• On 25 September 2024, IR wrote to DQJ with its decision to dismiss on notice.
• This included phone calls and messages the Team Leader considered inappropriate and ultimately led to her contacting the Domain Lead seeking to resign.
• She says as it was not raised again, she thought IR were happy enough with her work (until receiving a letter shortly before her dismissal).
• The Authority found IR ought to have adopted one or more of these alternative processes rather than rely on frustration to bring the employment relationship to an abrupt end without yet having made any formal attempts to address the concerns that may have resulted in an outcome short of dismissal.
• On a substantive basis, The Authority found IR acted prematurely and without justification by dismissing DQJ.
• Applied in Lyttelton Port Company Limited v Arthurs [2018] NZEmpC 9. failures to achieve those standards such as progressive warnings, before considering dismissal.15 [91] In short, IR did not do what a fair and reasonable employer could in all the circumstances at the time it terminated DQJ's employment.
• Aspects of the impact of DQJ's dismissal on her mental health were supported by the report.

Decision markers

• The Authority found IR ought to have adopted one or more of these alternative processes rather than rely on frustration to bring the employment relationship to an abrupt end without yet having made any formal attempts to address the concerns that may have resulted in an outcome short of dismissal.
• On a substantive basis, The Authority found IR acted prematurely and without justification by dismissing DQJ.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $35,000
• Costs: Costs considered.

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

• 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.