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
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Ilalio Solomona v Auckland Council [2026] NZERA 418 - conflict of interest dismissal unjustified

Auckland Council summarily dismissed a fitness instructor over an undeclared personal-training business and three social-media videos filmed at a Council leisure centre. The ERA held that the Council relied on policies which did not in substance fit the alleged conflict, failed to raise the contractual obligations it might have relied on, and pursued discipline over matters known long beforehand without first discussing them in good faith. The dismissal was unjustified. Remedies were reduced by 10 percent for the employee's use of customers and the workplace to promote his own business...

Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall's Northland asbestos-surveyor and mould-testing role was genuinely disestablished for commercial reasons, but Consultex Company Limited failed to consult in good faith. It did not meaningfully answer Mr Hall's request for financial information, failed to engage with his redeployment question, and sent a response that strongly suggested the decision had already been made before consultation closed. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and ordered $8,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution...

Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was summarily dismissed by Talley's Limited after a complaint connected with an election for a health and safety representative. The ERA found Talley's had not properly investigated the complaint, had not clearly set out the allegations or supporting information, had not given Mr Potter a fair opportunity to respond, and could not reasonably conclude that he had bullied, intimidated, or attempted to influence the vote. Mr Potter was awarded $20,000 compensation and $7,226.25 gross lost remuneration, no contribution was found...

Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett was required to resign before holiday leave and then re-employed after the break. The ERA held that Polygon had manufactured the termination to minimise Holidays Act liabilities, meaning her employment was continuous. It also found a later redundancy dismissal unjustified because the business sale remained uncertain, redeployment was not properly considered, relevant information was withheld, and no contractual notice was provided. The Authority ordered compensation, lost wages, notice pay, Holidays Act entitlements, wage arrears, interest and a penalty...

Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

The Department of Corrections dismissed Principal Corrections Officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi after he used force on a prisoner and did not report the incident. Although he had been acquitted of assault on the basis of self-defence, Corrections revisited the same factual questions and reached the opposite conclusions. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because Corrections blurred the criminal and employment issues, did not properly identify and assess the remaining policy breaches, allowed a conflicted decision maker to continue, and relied on conduct that was not put as an allegation. Reinstatement was declined, but the Authority ordered $17,000 compensation and $19,882.50 lost wages after a 15 percent contribution reduction...

Browse topics