DRUMMOND v THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 82

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

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, The final meeting in relation to the allegations regarding the Ball occurred on 3 November 2023. After that, It is not otherwise clear that Mr Drummond takes issue with any later meeting. (viii) By issuing him with a final warning on or about 3 November 2023. (ix) By refusing to abate his rental payments in circumstances Massey University was aware that he was unable to work due to stress. Later, The letter commenced by referring to Massey University's decision relating to the warning, listed (quoted wording omitted) matters (including reference to the April 2023 meetings, alleged lack of support, absence from work, and the rent issue). The determination records that That letter noted that any matters relating to April 2023 were out of time and that it otherwise did not agree with the allegations relating to the investigation and warning arising from the allegations as to the Ball. The Authority notes that In terms of the alleged cumulative events, Mr Drummond submits that the 90- day timeframe started on the day of the last event, that being 3 November 2023, and that there was a continuous course of action from April 2023 to November 2023 that amounted to bullying. Ultimately, Massey University accept that a number of the claims were raised within time, those relating to the warning and the matters arising from the Ball (and specifically excluding any issues arising out of the 12 and 13 April 2023 meetings). In the end, While the personal grievance notification of 15 December 2023 made reference to other events, The Authority found that the personal grievance raised was in effect that Mr Drummond considered he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by Massey University's issuing of the warning, and the associated investigation.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are DRUMMOND (employee) and THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• The final meeting in relation to the allegations regarding the Ball occurred on 3 November 2023.
• It is not otherwise clear that Mr Drummond takes issue with any later meeting. (viii) By issuing him with a final warning on or about 3 November 2023. (ix) By refusing to abate his rental payments in circumstances Massey University was aware that he was unable to work due to stress.
• The letter commenced by referring to Massey University's decision relating to the warning, listed (quoted wording omitted) matters (including reference to the April 2023 meetings, alleged lack of support, absence from work, and the rent issue).
• That letter noted that any matters relating to April 2023 were out of time and that it otherwise did not agree with the allegations relating to the investigation and warning arising from the allegations as to the Ball.
• In terms of the alleged cumulative events, Mr Drummond submits that the 90- day timeframe started on the day of the last event, that being 3 November 2023, and that there was a continuous course of action from April 2023 to November 2023 that amounted to bullying.
• Massey University accept that a number of the claims were raised within time, those relating to the warning and the matters arising from the Ball (and specifically excluding any issues arising out of the 12 and 13 April 2023 meetings).

Decision markers

• While the personal grievance notification of 15 December 2023 made reference to other events, The Authority found that the personal grievance raised was in effect that Mr Drummond considered he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by Massey University's issuing of the warning, and the associated investigation.

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.