ClickCease

Mere Broughton was dismissed by The Whanau Ora Community Clinic after 106 days of employment under an agreement containing a probation provision. The case concerned whether the employer could treat probation as permitting dismissal without the ordinary justification and fair-process requirements.

The short answer

The ERA found Ms Broughton's dismissal unjustified. A probation clause did not remove the employer's obligation to have substantive justification and follow a fair process before dismissing her.


George Ngatai, Whanau Ora and the Broughton ERA decision [2023] NZERA 52

George Ngatai has recently been in the news following his resignation as New Zealand First's Papakura candidate. A public Employment Relations Authority determination from 2023 also records him as the director of the respondent company in Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52.

Important: the respondent and employer in the ERA case was The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd. The Authority's findings and monetary orders were against the company, not George Ngatai personally.

What the ERA records about George Ngatai

At paragraph [5], the determination records that the respondent's director, George Ngatai, and manager Raewyn Bhana attended the investigation meeting. The Authority records that neither gave evidence, although Mr Ngatai spoke by invitation.

At paragraph [10], the Authority records that Mr Ngatai proposed an alternative way of trying to resolve the employment relationship problem. The parties did not agree on how to proceed, and Ms Broughton asked the Authority to continue its investigation and determine the case.

What happened in the Broughton case

Mere Broughton was employed by The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd under an employment agreement containing a probation provision. The Authority found that the probation period expired on 14 June 2022 and had not been extended before its expiry.

Ms Broughton was dismissed on 30 June 2022 after 106 days of employment. The Authority found that the employer had wrongly treated the probation arrangements as continuing and that the dismissal was unjustified.

The Authority also found that the employer had offered no justification for the dismissal and had failed to pay notice and holiday-pay entitlements due on termination.

Case at a glance

  • Case: Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd
  • Citation: [2023] NZERA 52
  • Respondent: The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd
  • Director recorded at [5]: George Ngatai
  • Applicant advocate: Lawrence Anderson
  • Outcome: unjustified dismissal established

Orders against the company

  • $20,000 compensation
  • $12,725.86 reimbursement of lost wages
  • $3,907.20 wages in lieu of notice
  • $1,007.92 annual holiday pay
  • Interest on specified monetary awards

Read the full case analysis

Our detailed case page examines the probation issue, the dismissal findings, the remedies awarded and the practical employment-law lessons from Broughton.

Mere Broughton v TWOCC [2023] NZERA 52
Dismissed from your job or facing an ERA claim? We represented Mere Broughton in this proceeding and can assess the employment-law issues, available remedies and next steps.

Contact Employee Case Form

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Employment Law News Opinion
Menzies v Corrigan [2026] NZEmpC 151 - late challenge refused, substantive issues remain unresolved

Mr Menzies sought to challenge an ERA compliance outcome arising from remedies originally ordered against a company that later entered liquidation. The background raised disputed accounting, disclosure, separate-legal-personality and recovery issues, but the challenge itself was filed substantially out of time.

Poor accounting in the ERA: Menzies v Corrigan and the liquidator disclosure problem with Catherine Stewart Barrister

This article examines how disputed accounting material in Menzies v Corrigan moved from a liquidator's reference to 'excessive drawings' into evidence used in proceedings seeking personal compliance orders against a company director. It also traces later disclosure issues involving material routed through Catherine Stewart Barrister's office.

Browse topics