ClickCease

JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - A costs determination was made.

A costs determination was made. On 9 April 2024 Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to comply with a direction for him to complete its mandatory online business modules.


JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 539
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED
  • Authority member: Alex Leulu
  • Hearing date: 6 May 2025 in Auckland and 10 June 2025
  • Outcome: A costs determination was made.

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, On 9 April 2024 Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to comply with a direction for him to complete its mandatory online business modules. After that, Disciplinary meetings [16] On 27 March 2024 Mr Jayalath received a call from Infosys management based in Australia to attend a meeting on the following day to discuss an allegation of breach of conduct. Later, During the meeting Ms Virk presented Mr Jayalath with a letter headed (quoted wording omitted) and read out the notice which set out allegations against Mr Jayalath for failing to complete the SAQ. The determination records that Unjustified dismissal Mr Jayalath's claims [25] Mr Jayalath raised several arguments alleging his dismissal by Infosys was both substantively and procedurally unjustified. The Authority notes that Mr Jayalath also claimed Infosys' process leading to his dismissal was flawed because he was not given ample opportunity to seek legal advice and properly respond to Infosys' allegations. Ultimately, In terms of its dismissal process, Infosys said it followed a fair and reasonable process by initiating the process with the Show Cause Notice and then gave Mr Jayalath an opportunity to comment before meeting with him to discuss the outcome of its process. In the end, It should not have been a surprise to Mr Jayalath when he was invited to attend the notice meeting and was given formal confirmation of his potential dismissal.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are JAYALATH (employee) and INFOSYS LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 6 May 2025 in Auckland and 10 June 2025.
  • Authority member: Alex Leulu.

Key events described

  • On 9 April 2024 Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to comply with a direction for him to complete its mandatory online business modules.
  • Disciplinary meetings [16] On 27 March 2024 Mr Jayalath received a call from Infosys management based in Australia to attend a meeting on the following day to discuss an allegation of breach of conduct.
  • During the meeting Ms Virk presented Mr Jayalath with a letter headed (quoted wording omitted) and read out the notice which set out allegations against Mr Jayalath for failing to complete the SAQ.
  • Unjustified dismissal Mr Jayalath's claims [25] Mr Jayalath raised several arguments alleging his dismissal by Infosys was both substantively and procedurally unjustified.
  • Mr Jayalath also claimed Infosys' process leading to his dismissal was flawed because he was not given ample opportunity to seek legal advice and properly respond to Infosys' allegations.
  • In terms of its dismissal process, Infosys said it followed a fair and reasonable process by initiating the process with the Show Cause Notice and then gave Mr Jayalath an opportunity to comment before meeting with him to discuss the outcome of its process.
  • It should not have been a surprise to Mr Jayalath when he was invited to attend the notice meeting and was given formal confirmation of his potential dismissal.
  • Accordingly, Infosys is ordered to pay Mr Jayalath $4,807.69 in remedies for his unjustified dismissal within 28 days of this determination.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Costs: Costs reserved.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

  • Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
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, Unjustified Disadvantage
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.

Browse topics