FEC v HES [2026] NZERA 475

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns an anonymised school principal who resigned after a difficult period involving workload pressure, board issues, and an incident with a parent. FEC claimed she had been constructively dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged. The Authority rejected constructive dismissal, but found that the school had unjustifiably disadvantaged FEC through the presiding member's after-hours visits to her home to deal with school business. HES was ordered to pay $10,000 compensation. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

FEC was employed as a beginning principal at a small school from March 2022 until January 2024. She said the Board had gone through rapid changes, was not functioning well, and did not give her enough support. She also said her workload expanded beyond ordinary principal duties and that, during 2023, the lack of relief teaching support increased her stress.

The central event was an incident on 11 August 2023 involving a parent at a school event. FEC said the parent was abusive and confrontational and that she felt unsafe and unsupported. She asked for an urgent Board meeting that day. Her evidence was that the meeting left her feeling personally attacked rather than supported.

FEC later resigned by email on 15 August 2023. The written resignation gave her partner's health as the reason for resigning. On 22 August 2023 she amended her final employment date to 27 January 2024. The Board accepted the resignation around six weeks later.

The non-publication order matters

This case involved a small school community, staff, pupils, parents, board members and health-related evidence. The Authority made permanent non-publication orders prohibiting publication of names and information that may identify the people described in the determination. That is why the parties are referred to only as FEC and HES.

The constructive dismissal claim failed

FEC argued that her resignation was caused by the school's breach of duty. Her case was that the Board failed to provide a safe and healthy work environment and failed to support her after the parent incident. The Authority applied the usual constructive dismissal framework, including whether a breach of duty by the employer caused the employee to resign and whether resignation was reasonably foreseeable.

The problem for FEC was that her resignation email gave her partner's health as the reason for resigning. Although she later said that was not the real reason, the Authority found that the Board was entitled to rely on the written reason it had been given. The Authority also found that, even if FEC had resigned because of the parent incident, the school had not breached its duty in the way alleged. The Board had met with FEC, considered what action to take, and arranged for the presiding member to speak with the parent first before considering trespass.

The broader disadvantage claims mostly failed

FEC alleged a range of disadvantage issues, including lack of support from the Board, an unsafe workplace, breach of good-employer obligations, and poor handling of the parent incident. The Authority accepted that FEC was under a high level of stress and that there had been difficult board dynamics.

However, the Authority was not satisfied that the broader health and safety concerns or disadvantage claims had been raised with the school in a way that the school could have understood as personal grievances. Much of the evidence showed FEC expressing concern about professionalism, board functioning, and support, rather than clearly notifying discrete personal grievances before the resignation.

Why unjustified disadvantage was found

The successful part of the claim concerned two after-hours visits by the Board's presiding member to FEC's home. On the first occasion, he attended unannounced and delivered written complaints from the parent. On the second occasion, he again attended FEC's home after hours to discuss school business.

The Authority considered those visits in the context of FEC's stress, the unresolved parent issue, and her concern that the Board was not supporting her. FEC's perspective was that, instead of the school addressing the safety issue she had raised, she was confronted at home with complaints from the parent. The Authority accepted that this was very difficult for FEC, made her feel unsafe at home, and had a detrimental effect on her.

The secret recording of the Board meeting was also relevant to context. FEC did not know about the recording until after her employment had ended, so the recording itself could not have caused a disadvantage during employment. However, the Authority said it gave insight into the presiding member's frame of mind before the home visits and supported FEC's account of what happened.

The Authority found the presiding member was acting in his official capacity as presiding member of the School Board. His conduct was therefore conduct of the school, not merely personal conduct. The Authority concluded that the school unjustifiably disadvantaged FEC by the way those home visits occurred.

Compensation

FEC was not awarded lost wages because constructive dismissal was not established. The remedy was compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings arising from the unjustified disadvantage.

The Authority accepted that this was a very stressful period for FEC and that her health was suffering. It also noted medical evidence that she was suffering from PTSD, while making no finding that the PTSD was caused by wrongful conduct by the school. The Authority assessed compensation at $10,000.

Penalty declined

FEC sought a penalty, but the Authority declined to impose one. The case was resolved by the compensation award for unjustified disadvantage, with costs reserved.

Why this case matters

FEC v HES is a useful reminder that a failed dismissal claim can still leave an employer exposed to disadvantage remedies. The Authority did not accept that FEC had been constructively dismissed. However, it still treated the presiding member's after-hours, unannounced home visits as unjustifiable employer conduct affecting FEC to her disadvantage.

The case is also a warning about boundaries. Employment issues should ordinarily be dealt with through proper workplace channels, not by turning up at an employee's home without prior consent, particularly where the employee has already raised concerns about safety, stress, and lack of support.

Practical takeaways

• Respect non-publication: anonymisation must be maintained where the Authority has prohibited identifying information.
• Do not assume constructive dismissal from stress alone: the employee must still prove a qualifying employer breach caused the resignation.
• Written resignation reasons matter: an employer may be entitled to rely on the reason actually given at the time.
• Keep employment issues in proper channels: unannounced after-hours visits to an employee's home can become unjustified disadvantage.
• Board members can bind the employer: the presiding member's conduct was treated as conduct of the school because he acted in an official capacity.
• A failed dismissal claim does not end the analysis: the Authority can still find a different form of personal grievance where the evidence supports it.

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.