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
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics