ClickCease

JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication

JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination. The ERA ordered $14,040.00 gross lost wages (3 months cap) and $17,500.00 compensation, with costs reserved. The determination includes a temporary non-publication order.


This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2. The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded remedies for lost wages and compensation.

Non-publication: This determination includes a temporary order prohibiting publication of the parties' names and identifying details for 28 days following release. The published decision uses anonymised identifiers (for example, "JHJ" and "IXX"), and this page follows the same approach.

Case summary

  • Citation: JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2
  • Authority location: Christchurch
  • Member: Philip Cheyne
  • Determination date: 5 January 2026
  • Investigation meetings: 15 July 2025 and 19 September 2025 (Christchurch)
  • Employment period: December 2023 to April 2024
  • Issue: Summary dismissal following a workplace incident on 18 April 2024, and whether the dismissal was justified
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld
  • Remedies ordered: $14,040.00 gross lost wages + $17,500.00 compensation (costs reserved)

Full determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2026/2026-NZERA-2.pdf

What happened

The employee worked for the respondent company from December 2023 until being summarily dismissed in April 2024. The employer said it dismissed him because of his behaviour at the workplace on 18 April 2024. The employee alleged he was unjustifiably dismissed and raised a personal grievance.

How the ERA assessed justification

The Authority applied the standard test of justification (Employment Relations Act 2000, section 103A): what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. In practical terms, that includes whether the employer investigated the concerns, raised them with the employee, gave a reasonable opportunity to respond, and genuinely considered that response before deciding to dismiss.

Key findings

  • Immediate dismissal: The Authority found the employee was dismissed on the day of the incident, before any meaningful investigation or process.
  • No fair process: The employer did not investigate, did not put concerns to the employee, and did not provide an opportunity to respond before dismissal.
  • Unjustified dismissal: These failures were not minor and resulted in unfair treatment, so the dismissal was unjustified.

Remedies and orders

  • $14,040.00 gross reimbursement of lost remuneration (3 months' ordinary time remuneration cap) - payable within 28 days
  • $17,500.00 compensation for hurt and humiliation (Employment Relations Act 2000, section 123(1)(c)) - payable within 28 days
  • Contribution: The Authority did not reduce remedies for contributory conduct. It found there was no blameworthy conduct by the employee that contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance.
  • Costs: Costs were reserved. The decision sets a timetable for memoranda if the parties cannot resolve costs by agreement.

Practical takeaways

  • Do not rely on summary dismissal without process. Even where an employer considers behaviour serious, it still usually needs a fair investigation and an opportunity to respond.
  • Contemporaneous evidence matters. The Authority gave weight to contemporaneous communications and treated later statements from witnesses (who did not attend to give evidence) with caution.
  • Remember the remedies framework. Lost wages are commonly capped at 3 months unless the Authority exercises discretion to go beyond the cap (and the evidence supports it).

Read the full determination

This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Open [2026] NZERA 2 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with an ERA matter? If you are dealing with a dismissal dispute, a PG (Personal Grievance), or you need representation at mediation or in the ERA, we can assist.
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
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.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics