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

A customer complaint was received about truck driver Eric Tillocksingh. Less than 48 hours later his employment was over. The Employment Relations Authority preferred his evidence that he had been given a choice to resign or be dismissed, had refused to resign, and was then dismissed immediately. The dismissal was unjustified.

Customer complaint led immediately to meetings

Mr Tillocksingh began work for Driver Employment Limited in January 2025. On 9 June 2025 the employer received a customer complaint concerning comments and behaviour during a furniture delivery. Meetings followed on 10 and 11 June.

The parties gave sharply different accounts of the second meeting. Mr Tillocksingh said he was told to resign or be dismissed. The employer's witnesses said he resigned or left after being told a drug test might be required.

The Authority found he was dismissed

The Authority preferred Mr Tillocksingh's account. His evidence was supported by contemporaneous steps after the meeting, including a prompt request for written confirmation of what had happened. The employer's evidence and retrospective notes did not persuade the Authority that he had voluntarily resigned.

The Authority found that the manager gave Mr Tillocksingh a choice between resignation and dismissal. He did not choose resignation. He was therefore dismissed, and his abrupt departure from the workplace occurred after that dismissal rather than causing the employment relationship to end.

Fundamental disciplinary-process failures

The process fell well short of section 103A. Mr Tillocksingh was not given advance written notice of the specific allegations and was not warned that dismissal was a possible outcome. He did not have a meaningful opportunity to obtain a support person or prepare a considered response.

The Authority also found evidence of predetermination. Before conducting a genuine inquiry, the manager had already used strongly derogatory language about Mr Tillocksingh. The prospect of a drug test was raised despite having no proper connection to the customer's complaint, adding further pressure to an already escalating meeting.

Complaint did not prove contributory misconduct

Driver Employment argued that the conduct giving rise to the customer complaint should reduce the remedies. The Authority rejected that submission. The existence of a complaint did not itself prove blameworthy conduct, particularly where the employer had not fairly investigated and established the allegations.

Mr Tillocksingh's departure from the workplace could not amount to contribution either, because the Authority found that it occurred after he had already been dismissed. No reduction under section 124 was made.

Three months' lost remuneration

Mr Tillocksingh obtained temporary work after dismissal, demonstrating mitigation. His actual loss exceeded the statutory three-month starting point. The Authority awarded $17,448.75 gross, calculated as three months' ordinary remuneration.

Compensation of $15,000 was also awarded for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. His evidence included ongoing low mood and the use of professional support after dismissal.

Why this case matters

This is a strong example of the difference between resignation and dismissal. An employer cannot force an apparent resignation by presenting dismissal as the only alternative and then rely on the word 'resign'. It is also a useful disciplinary-process case: allegations need to be put clearly and fairly before the employer decides the outcome.

Read more Employment Relations Authority unfair dismissal cases.

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.