Fvg v Yjn [2026] NZERA 242

A report-style summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

• A structural engineer referred to by the randomly chosen letters FVG, was employed from early 2022 by a company YJN, also identified by such chosen letters. That company had recently become part of an international engineering and professional services firm.
• After initially being without a manager, YJN appointed W as manager of FVG's team. There were tensions between W and FVG which impacted the small office. Ultimately FVG was dismissed in March 2024 for breaching the company's Code of Conduct.
• FVG comes to the Authority with personal grievances and argues her employer breached its good faith obligations to her. YJN responds that it dismissed FVG after a series of staff and client complaints and observations by the country manager, along with a careful consideration of all the evidence. Non-publication order
• FVG requested her case not be publicly available. This was taken as an application for a non-publication order as the Authority's determinations are, as a matter of course, made public.
• The Authority has the power to make non-publication orders.1 The process involves identifying specific risks of harm then weighing the reasonable likelihood of occurrence against the open justice principle.2
• FVG is concerned about the potential damage to her professional reputation and future career.
• While there was some strength to her arguments there, perhaps more significantly there was also substantial evidence heard about her health and personal life.
• YJN did not seem opposed to a non-publication order.
• The HR manager from Australia (referred to as B), who had been involved with FVG whilst she was employed, was to give evidence but was on parental leave and at some point returned to her country of origin. Her replacement attended the meeting via AVL and provided some helpful co-ordination but was not involved with...
• The agreed plan was for B to give evidence when the meeting resumed, after she was able to do so. However, B resigned from employment and YJN did not seek for her to attend the Authority. As she was not in New Zealand the Authority decided the meeting should conclude without her evidence, setting aside her witness...
• As set out in directions after discussion at a case management conference with the parties, the issues for investigation and determination are: (a) Was FVG disadvantaged by unjustifiable action of YJN regarding: (i) failure to investigate her bullying complaints against W; (ii) lowering of her employee...
• For the first few months FVG recalls having no direct manager. She appears to have expressed some frustration about not being given work. There is tension with the assistant M. By 1 April 2022 email M complains to YJN's country manager G about FVG - alleging loud and rude behaviour and demeaning comments. M...

Key findings and reasoning

• FVG comes to the Authority with personal grievances and argues her employer breached its good faith obligations to her. YJN responds that it dismissed FVG after a series of staff and client complaints and observations by the country manager, along with a careful consideration of all the evidence. Non-publication order
• As set out in directions after discussion at a case management conference with the parties, the issues for investigation and determination are: (a) Was FVG disadvantaged by unjustifiable action of YJN regarding: (i) failure to investigate her bullying complaints against W; (ii) lowering of her employee...
• On 1 March 2024 FVG responds in detail about the proposed termination and also sends a personal grievance regarding unjustified disadvantage and dismissal. This includes reference to YJN not following up on her bullying complaint. She writes a few days later that she has a bullying personal grievance. On 5 March...
• The test to be examined is whether, on an objective basis, YJN acted as a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances - s 103A of the Act. In addition, good faith obligations under s 4 of the Act, including to be constructive and communicative, are to be considered.
• There could be seen as a minor failure of good faith by YJN to communicate clearly but that does not meet the tests in s 4A of the Act to warrant a penalty. Once FVG raised her questions there were written and verbal discussions with her and she got to a level she was seemingly satisfied with at the time.
• The Authority not satisfied that there was an unjustified action to FVG's disadvantage regarding the classification system. Suspension grievance
• As FVG is found to be unjustifiably dismissed, the unjustified disadvantage grievance regarding the investigation and disciplinary process leading to dismissal have already been covered. Remedies sought
• FVG has established grievances for unjustifiable disadvantage regarding suspension and unjustified dismissal. She has not done so regarding the failure to investigate a bullying complaint and the classification status so no remedy is awarded regarding those allegations. Reinstatement
• Reinstatement is a primary remedy which the Authority must order if it is practicable and reasonable to do so.8
• FVG seeks a substantial period of lost wages due to being unable to find other work.
• The Authority that an award of six months' lost wages is the starting point before consideration of contribution. Compensation
• Consideration has been given to other cases with similar circumstances when assessing appropriate levels of compensation in this matter. Before consideration of contribution, amounts of $7,000 for the suspension grievance and $27,000 for the dismissal grievance are warranted. Contribution

Orders and payments mentioned

• Other payments: $7,000, $27,000
• Lost wages / arrears: $71.55
• Compensation: $4,900, $18,900
• Filing fee / expenses: $71.55

Note: amounts are extracted from the orders wording. Check the PDF for full context (gross/net, tax, contribution, and deadlines).

Practical takeaways

• ERA dismissal cases are assessed using s 103A (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances).
• For redundancy, genuineness and process are separate: consultation and redeployment assessment remain critical.
• Trial periods are technical and interpreted strictly. Drafting and timing defects can defeat a trial defence.
• Unjustified disadvantage requires unjustified employer conduct and an actual disadvantage.
• Always read the orders section for the authoritative list of payments, deadlines, and compliance steps.

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.