HIRST v AL ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 474

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, After further confirmation from Ms Hirst's representative, the single issue for investigation was one of unjustified direct dismissal. After that, AL was sent an earlier notice of investigation meeting and was later emailed a reminder to the investigation meeting which confirmed it would be held by AVL. Later, I held a two-hour investigation meeting by AVL on 4 August 2025. The determination records that The Authority found that AL likely dismissed Ms Hirst through my following findings in relation to the sequence of events from 6 April 2024 onwards. The Authority notes that AL first talks to Ms Hirst about missing takings [15] The Authority found it likely that Ms Balkhausen phoned Ms Hirst on the afternoon of 6 April 2024 sometime after the bakery's stall at the Saturday market had finished. Ultimately, Given the call the day before, The Authority found it likely based on what is before me that both parties understood it was to further the discussion about the alleged shortfall in the cash takings that Ms Balkhausen had rung Ms Hirst about the afternoon before. In the end, Even if Ms Hirst 6 My emphasis added did not feed this back when being asked about discrepancies by Ms Balkhausen, The Authority found some likelihood that the manner in which the investigation was being conducted likely did not allow for much feedback or analysis.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are HIRST (employee) and AL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 4 August 2025.
• Authority member: Antoinette Baker.

Key events described

• After further confirmation from Ms Hirst's representative, the single issue for investigation was one of unjustified direct dismissal.
• AL was sent an earlier notice of investigation meeting and was later emailed a reminder to the investigation meeting which confirmed it would be held by AVL.
• I held a two-hour investigation meeting by AVL on 4 August 2025.
• Given the call the day before, The Authority found it likely based on what is before me that both parties understood it was to further the discussion about the alleged shortfall in the cash takings that Ms Balkhausen had rung Ms Hirst about the afternoon before.
• Even if Ms Hirst 6 My emphasis added did not feed this back when being asked about discrepancies by Ms Balkhausen, The Authority found some likelihood that the manner in which the investigation was being conducted likely did not allow for much feedback or analysis.
• The Authority found this email provides me with the closest to a contemporaneous recording of at least how Ms Hirst saw the situation soon after the second meeting above: You have called me in twice on Sunday (my day off) to accuse me of theft.
• Ms Hirst confirmed to me that words of 'I dismiss you' or the like were not said by Ms Balkhausen in either of the above meetings.
• The Authority tariff is based on a starting rate for any estimated representation costs towards an investigation meeting with straight forward preparation and evidence provision but not including appearance at mediation.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that AL likely dismissed Ms Hirst through my following findings in relation to the sequence of events from 6 April 2024 onwards.
• AL first talks to Ms Hirst about missing takings [15] The Authority found it likely that Ms Balkhausen phoned Ms Hirst on the afternoon of 6 April 2024 sometime after the bakery's stall at the Saturday market had finished.
• The Authority found however that Ms Hirst was genuinely disturbed by this action.
• The Authority found that on a fine balance, this was a situation where AL dismissed Ms Hirst directly by sending her away.
• Based on the above The Authority found Ms Hirst was dismissed and there being no fair process that could have allowed a substantive finding to support, The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Costs: $6,150.00
• Other payments: $25.00, $1,025.00

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.