ClickCease

JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $8,933 remedies (reduced) plus wage arrears.

Unjustified dismissal upheld on procedural grounds. Remedies were reduced by one third for contributory conduct, and wage/public holiday underpayments were ordered.


JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR [2026] NZERA 13

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 13
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld (procedural fairness). Remedies were reduced by one third for contributory conduct.

Story in plain English

Mr Singh worked as a kitchen hand. After an incident where the employer believed he attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant, Mr Singh was dismissed by phone call and then email. The Authority accepted there were substantive concerns, but found the dismissal process was significantly deficient and the defects were not "minor". The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld. The Authority also determined wage and public holiday underpayments, while dismissing Mr Singh's personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage.

Key case markers

  • Authority member: Helen van Druten.
  • Employment ended: 27 February 2024.
  • Unjustified disadvantage claim: unsuccessful.
  • Contributory conduct: one-third reduction applied to the unjustified dismissal remedies.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • On 27 February 2024, Mr Singh's employment was terminated with immediate effect.
  • It is agreed by the parties that, other than from 17 May to 11 June 2023 and 7 August to 8 October 2023 (the disputed periods), Mr Singh was paid 30 hours each week at $30 per hour.
  • He claims that for the 27 weeks from 12 June 2023 to 25 February 2024 he is owed an additional 601 hours worked equating to $18,030 gross, plus holiday pay and interest on that amount.
  • Mr Vivek was unable to provide any reasons why he paid $280 in cash to Mr Singh over the nine-week period from 7 August to 8 October 2023.
  • It records a day in lieu payment for 26 December 2023 even though the L&B roster does not record him working on that day.
  • The 3 June 2024 payslip shows some additional payment at T1.5, leaving a short payment of $45 gross.
  • Mr Singh is awarded payment for the remainder of his public holiday hours worked on 1 and 2 January 2024, being $45 gross.
  • Even though significant time has passed since this event, the incident of 26 February 2024 was a significant event to Mr Singh at the time.
  • Both parties agree that the incident on 26 February 2024 occurred around 8pm.
  • There is no paper trail of prior meetings with feedback, warnings or investigation undertaken relating to the incident on 26 February 2024.
  • On 27 February 2024, Mr Vivek phoned Mr Singh then emailed Mr Singh (and copied his uncle) with (quoted wording omitted).
  • For that reason, I consider that there were more than minor defects in L&B's process when it dismissed Mr Singh without notice on 27 February 2024.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Unjustified dismissal remedies (combined and reduced): $8,933 (payable within 28 working days).
  • Wage arrears: $12,165 gross, plus 8 percent holiday pay on that amount.
  • Public holiday underpayment: $45 gross, plus 8 percent holiday pay on that amount.
  • Interest: Interest ordered on the wage arrears and public holiday sums (after holiday pay) under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
  • Other note: If L&B does not pay the wage/public holiday/holiday pay sums ordered, Mr Vivek may be personally liable as a person involved.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics