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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Brent Colyer v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited [2026] NZERA 444 - flawed disciplinary process, written warning and unjustified disadvantage

Brent Colyer had worked for New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited as an electrician for almost 20 years. After he inspected a gantry crane without first isolating a related 35-tonne crane, NZAS investigated and issued a written warning. The ERA found the disciplinary process was unjustified and breached good faith. NZAS had blurred an informal incident investigation into a disciplinary investigation, failed to collect basic statements, allowed an uninvestigated concern about Mr Colyer's attitude toward a colleague to become central, failed to provide the correct investigation report in advance, and then accidentally gave him a draft report containing an outcomes section. Constructive dismissal failed, but unjustified disadvantage succeeded. NZAS was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Browse topics