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
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics