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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics