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
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics