ClickCease

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

The short answer

The ERA accepted there were substantive concerns but found more than minor procedural defects, so the dismissal was unjustified. Dismissal remedies were reduced by one third for contribution to $8,933, and the employer was also ordered to pay $12,165 wage arrears plus holiday pay and a small public-holiday shortfall.


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

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics