James Honotapu v Atlas Fibrous Plaster Company Limited [2026] NZERA 587

Atlas had serious and longstanding concerns about James Honotapu's attendance and failure to give advance notice of absences. But it invited him to a meeting without warning that dismissal was possible, then decided during the meeting to end his employment. The Employment Relations Authority found the process unjustified and reduced remedies by 50 percent for his substantial contribution.

Persistent absenteeism affected the business

Mr Honotapu had worked for Atlas since 2011 and had also completed a lengthy earlier period of employment. From 2022 his attendance deteriorated significantly. Atlas said he was absent for 74 working days over approximately 49 weeks and, closer to dismissal, averaged 2.9 days away in each working week.

He received at least one verbal warning, reduced to writing, and had multiple discussions about attendance and the need to communicate when he would be late or absent. Much of the leave was for personal reasons and was not requested in advance. The Authority accepted that this caused significant difficulty for Atlas when managing client work.

The meeting changed course

Atlas asked Mr Honotapu to attend a meeting on 16 July 2024 and suggested bringing a support person. It did not tell him that his employment was at risk. The reason was that the decision-maker did not begin the meeting expecting to dismiss him.

During the discussion, Atlas concluded that Mr Honotapu did not accept responsibility for his attendance and would continue behaving in the same way. It then decided to terminate his employment, later confirming the decision in writing and paying notice in lieu.

A fair process required a pause

The Authority accepted that Atlas had legitimate substantive concerns. However, once dismissal became a possible outcome, fairness required the employer to tell Mr Honotapu and give him a meaningful chance to address that risk before a final decision.

Had he known dismissal was possible, Mr Honotapu might have brought a representative rather than only a support person, obtained further evidence about his health and prepared a more constructive response. The eventual decision might still have been dismissal, but he was denied proper input into it.

The failure to warn him of the possible outcome and allow a fully informed response meant the dismissal was unjustified.

Lost wages and compensation

Mr Honotapu sought lost wages using a 30-hour week, but the evidence showed he was then working about two days a week. Based on six hours a day at $33 per hour, the Authority awarded 13 weeks' ordinary pay of $5,148 before contribution.

The manner in which the termination was framed caused embarrassment and had a debilitating emotional effect. Compensation was assessed at $12,000 before contribution.

A substantial contribution reduction

Mr Honotapu's prolonged absences, failure to seek leave in advance and poor communication were blameworthy and directly contributed to the grievance. The Authority assessed contribution at 50 percent.

That reduction did not excuse Atlas from running a fair process. It reflected the distinct point that both parties contributed to the situation: the employee through persistent attendance failures and the employer through a procedurally unfair dismissal.

Why this case matters

Honotapu v Atlas Fibrous Plaster demonstrates how an initially non-disciplinary meeting can become procedurally unsafe. If information emerging during a meeting causes the employer to contemplate dismissal for the first time, the fair response is to adjourn, identify the possible outcome and reconvene after the employee has had time to obtain advice, representation and supporting evidence.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load, use the button below.

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.