ClickCease

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

JHJ challenged a dismissal by IXX in a proceeding subject to temporary non-publication. The ERA considered whether the employer had substantive and procedural justification and what lost remuneration and distress compensation should follow if the grievance succeeded.

The short answer

The ERA found JHJ was unjustifiably dismissed and ordered $14,040 gross lost wages and $17,500 compensation. Costs were reserved, and a temporary non-publication order applied to the determination.


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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics