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
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics