Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Duane April, an industrial/intumescent spray painter who came to New Zealand to work for Coatrite Fire Limited on an accredited employer work visa. Mr April was employed from January 2023 until his dismissal in May 2024. The Authority found that he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged during employment and then unjustifiably dismissed. The successful disadvantage grievances concerned underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unlawful wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning about the work vehicle. The dismissal was unjustified because Coatrite's allegations were not properly supported, the process denied Mr April a fair opportunity to respond with remote support from his father, the decision maker did not attend the disciplinary meeting, and the final dismissal decision was inconsistent with the meeting ending on the basis the parties could work to get things back on track. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The employment agreement and the $38 hourly rate

Mr April signed a written individual employment agreement in October 2022. The agreement recorded his role as industrial/intumescent spray painter, a gross hourly rate of $38, and a minimum of 40 hours per week. It also contained provisions about wage deductions, harassment, bullying, disciplinary procedures, serious misconduct, and responsibility for the work vehicle.

Coatrite accepted that Mr April had not been paid the agreed $38 hourly rate for every hour worked. Instead, he had been paid $35 per hour, leaving $7,790.40 gross in wage arrears. Coatrite said the error came from the rate being incorrectly loaded into payroll and not being raised until Mr April's father drew attention to it in May 2024. The Authority held that this did not justify the underpayment.

Unlawful deductions from wages

The Authority also considered deductions from Mr April's wages. The payslips showed deductions described as company expense deductions, fines, spray gun not returned, and spray tips. Coatrite accepted it did not comply with the employment agreement requirements for advising Mr April in writing of an intention to deduct from his pay.

The Authority found the deductions, totalling $968, were not authorised in writing and were unlawful. Even if a general deduction authority could exist, Coatrite had not complied with the express notification and authorisation requirements in its own employment agreement. Busyness and pressure of work did not justify non-compliance.

Racialised comments and workplace dignity

Mr April alleged that Mr Bohlmann made racialised comments about the condition of the work vehicle. Mr Bohlmann denied making the comments alleged to Mr April, but accepted he may have used similar language in a later conversation with Mr April's father. The Authority accepted the evidence of Mr April's father about the meaning and unacceptability of the comment in the relevant cultural context.

The Authority found it was more likely than not that Mr Bohlmann made a racialised comment to Mr April in March 2024 and also made a comment to Mr April's father that was reasonably understood as racialised. Mr April was entitled to a workplace free from racial harassment, bullying and intimidation, which was expressly provided for in the employment agreement. Even if Mr Bohlmann did not intend to offend, the effect on Mr April was that he felt offended and demeaned. That caused unjustified disadvantage in his employment.

The 24 March verbal warning was unjustified

On 24 March 2024, while Mr April was still returning from approved annual leave, Mr Bohlmann emailed concerns about the cleanliness of the work vehicle and damaged tools found inside it. The email told Mr April to take it as a verbal warning for mistreating company property.

The Authority treated that verbal warning as a disciplinary sanction. Coatrite could not establish that issuing the warning met the statutory test of justification. The verbal warning therefore became a further successful unjustified disadvantage grievance.

The disciplinary allegations leading to dismissal

In early May 2024, Coatrite invited Mr April to a disciplinary meeting concerning alleged serious misconduct. The allegations referred to performance and conduct at worksites, the state of the company van and equipment, failure to fulfil duties, and honesty and accountability. The letter said dismissal could result, but no supporting information was attached.

Before the disciplinary meeting, Mr April's father emailed Coatrite raising several issues: the pay shortfall, deductions, the verbal warning, Mr April's concern about the work environment, and his hope that the employment relationship could be restored. He also raised that Mr April was introverted, conflict averse and could be easily exploited. Those matters were before the employer before the dismissal decision was made, but the Authority found there was insufficient evidence they were genuinely considered.

Denial of remote support

Mr April attended the disciplinary meeting with Coatrite's operations manager and business development manager. Mr April said that at the start of the meeting he asked for his father to attend by WhatsApp video call because his father was supporting him. The request was not recorded in the minutes, but the Authority accepted Mr April's evidence and his father's evidence that his father was waiting for the call at the scheduled time.

The Authority found Mr April was unfairly denied the opportunity to have his support person attend by audio-visual technology. That was particularly significant given the concerns already raised about Mr April's ability to assert himself in a stressful disciplinary setting.

The meeting ended as though employment would continue

The meeting minutes recorded that the discussion ended with a handshake and that Mr April was asked to go home, think about the discussion and what was expected of him, and that they could work on getting things back on track. Mr April understood from this that the employment relationship would continue.

Two days later, however, Mr April was told he was being dismissed. The dismissal letter referred to Mr April's failure to provide a further email response after the hearing. The Authority held that it was unreasonable and unfair to rely on that lack of further response where Mr April had a reasonable basis to understand that his employment was ongoing.

This flaw was amplified because the ultimate decision maker, Mr Bohlmann, had not attended the disciplinary meeting. Had he attended, Mr April may have better understood that dismissal remained a potential outcome and may have provided further information relevant to preserving his employment.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The Authority identified a series of serious problems with Coatrite's dismissal decision. The allegations were not supported by enough information to allow Mr April to meaningfully comment. Detailed material later provided to the Authority, including alleged problems on the Kamo and Remuera Road projects and infringement notices, had not been provided during the disciplinary process. It was unclear why that information could not have been provided at the time.

The decision letter also enlarged the van allegation. The original concern referred to one instance of the vehicle and equipment being in poor condition, which had already been addressed by the verbal warning. The final decision referred to the van and equipment being consistently found in poor condition. The Authority found it was not clear why the van issue was revived or enlarged in the dismissal decision.

Coatrite also failed to properly consider the wider context, including the underpayment, deductions, racialised comments, and concerns raised by Mr April's father. These were relevant to the circumstances in which the disciplinary process and dismissal decision occurred. The Authority found the flaws were not minor or technical; they were central to the finding that Coatrite did not have a reasonable or justified basis to dismiss Mr April.

Compensation and lost wages

Mr April established three unjustified disadvantage grievances and an unjustified dismissal grievance. The Authority assessed compensation separately. For the disadvantage grievances, it awarded $12,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. For the dismissal, it awarded a further $16,000.

Mr April also sought reimbursement of lost wages following dismissal. The Authority accepted his claim for 12 weeks' lost remuneration and awarded $18,240 gross. No contribution reduction was made. The Authority found Mr April had not contributed in a blameworthy way to the circumstances that led to his employment ending, and that the information Coatrite provided did not establish the claims it made against him.

Arrears, holiday pay and interest

The Authority ordered Coatrite to pay $7,790.40 gross wage arrears for the $3 per hour underpayment, plus $623.23 gross holiday pay calculated at 8 percent. It also ordered repayment of $968 net in unlawful deductions. Interest was ordered on the arrears using the civil debt interest calculator, as stated in the determination.

Coatrite's attempted set-off mostly failed

Coatrite attempted to set off alleged losses against Mr April's successful claims. It claimed infringement notices, replacement costs for spray equipment, and costs said to arise from redo work.

Only a small part of the infringement claim succeeded. Mr April was ordered to reimburse $200 for five parking-without-payment notices. The other infringement claims were rejected as stale or insufficiently established. The spray gun, tips and nozzles claim also failed because Coatrite had not adequately investigated when or how the items were damaged, who had access to the vehicle, what the items were worth at the relevant time, and what reasonable wear and tear or repair options existed. The redo-work claim failed because it had not been properly investigated during employment and was not established on the information before the Authority.

Frivolous and vexatious application rejected

Coatrite also asked for some or all of Mr April's application to be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. The Authority rejected that application. The threshold for such dismissal is high, and given the findings in Mr April's favour on personal grievances and arrears, the threshold was plainly not met.

Penalties

The Authority found breaches of statutory obligations relating to wage, time and leave records, failure to pay wages at the agreed rate, unlawful deductions, and underpayment of holiday pay. Those breaches were interrelated, so the Authority globalised the penalty assessment.

Coatrite's conduct was treated as serious. It was responsible for paying wages as agreed, making only lawful deductions, producing wage and time records promptly when requested, and paying correctly calculated holiday pay on termination. The Authority considered there was direct loss to Mr April and that he had spent time and resources seeking to enforce statutory obligations. A total penalty of $4,000 was ordered, with half payable to Mr April and half to the Crown.

Why this case matters

April v Coatrite Fire Limited is a useful determination on the interaction between day-to-day employment standards breaches and dismissal fairness. Coatrite did not simply fail at the dismissal stage. By the time it dismissed Mr April, there were already live issues about underpayment, unlawful deductions, racialised comments and an unjustified warning. A fair employer had to take that context seriously before deciding whether the employee's alleged conduct justified dismissal.

The case is also significant for migrant-worker and visa-dependent employment relationships. The Authority did not need to create a special legal test because of Mr April's visa status, but the background helps explain the practical imbalance in the relationship and the importance of the employer complying strictly with written pay and process obligations.

Finally, the determination is a warning against broad, unsupported disciplinary allegations. If an employer wants to rely on allegations about poor work, vehicle damage, dishonesty or accountability, it must provide enough detail and supporting material for the employee to answer. It cannot hold back the detail until the Authority process and expect the original dismissal to survive scrutiny.

Practical takeaways

• Pay the written rate: payroll errors do not excuse underpayment of the wage agreed in the employment agreement.
• Do not make informal deductions: deduction clauses require careful compliance with the Wages Protection Act and the employment agreement.
• Racialised comments can be disadvantage: intention is not the only issue; the effect on the employee and the contractual right to a harassment-free workplace matter.
• Warnings are disciplinary sanctions: an employer must be able to justify a verbal warning under s 103A.
• Provide the evidence with the allegations: broad allegations without supporting detail do not give a fair opportunity to respond.
• Take support-person requests seriously: remote attendance may be a practical and fair way to ensure the employee can participate properly.
• Do not send mixed signals: if dismissal remains possible, the employer should not leave the employee with a reasonable impression that the employment relationship will continue.
• Counterclaims need proof: claimed set-offs for equipment damage or redo work require proper investigation and evidence, not assumption.

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.