JOHNSTONE v ZXY [2025] NZERA 11

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, Ms Johnstone says ZXY unjustifiably dismissed her for failing to call an ambulance after an incident involving a resident she cared for (among other things). After that, Together with aggravating features like Ms Johnstone attempting to shift blame to her co-worker, the incident justified her summary dismissal, despite her otherwise unblemished 21 years' service with it. Later, The Authority heard evidence and submissions at an investigation meeting in Christchurch on 24 and 25 September 2024. The determination records that The incident subject of the dismissal occurred on 27 April 2023. The Authority notes that Disciplinary Process Following further investigation, ZXY wrote to Ms Johnstone in a letter dated 12 May 2023 notifying her of a disciplinary meeting and convening a formal disciplinary meeting to hear her responses to allegations of serious misconduct. Ultimately, On 26 May 2023 Ms Knowles wrote a letter to Ms Johnstone: Provisional outcome of disciplinary meeting Dear [Ms Johnstone] Further to our meeting Friday 19 May 2023, I write to confirm my findings from the investigation and the provisional outcome in terms of a proposed penalty before I reach a final decision. In the end, Mr Hope's letter dated 31 May 2023 materially said: At an investigation meeting held 19 May 2023, [Ms Johnstone] verbally presented her account of events as they transpired on 27 April 2023.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are JOHNSTONE (employee) and ZXY (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 24 and 25 September 2024.
• Authority member: Lucia Vincent.

Key events described

• Ms Johnstone says ZXY unjustifiably dismissed her for failing to call an ambulance after an incident involving a resident she cared for (among other things).
• Together with aggravating features like Ms Johnstone attempting to shift blame to her co-worker, the incident justified her summary dismissal, despite her otherwise unblemished 21 years' service with it.
• The Authority heard evidence and submissions at an investigation meeting in Christchurch on 24 and 25 September 2024.
• The incident subject of the dismissal occurred on 27 April 2023.
• Disciplinary Process Following further investigation, ZXY wrote to Ms Johnstone in a letter dated 12 May 2023 notifying her of a disciplinary meeting and convening a formal disciplinary meeting to hear her responses to allegations of serious misconduct.
• On 26 May 2023 Ms Knowles wrote a letter to Ms Johnstone: Provisional outcome of disciplinary meeting Dear [Ms Johnstone] Further to our meeting Friday 19 May 2023, I write to confirm my findings from the investigation and the provisional outcome in terms of a proposed penalty before I reach a final decision.
• Mr Hope's letter dated 31 May 2023 materially said: At an investigation meeting held 19 May 2023, [Ms Johnstone] verbally presented her account of events as they transpired on 27 April 2023.
• Ms Knowles dismissed Ms Johnstone in her letter to her dated 1 June 2023: Further to my letter of 26 May 2023 I have now had an opportunity to consider [Mr Hope]'s letter of 31 May 2023 on your behalf, responding to my letter.
• I have taken careful note of the key points from [Mr Hope]'s letter, and I have also once again reviewed all the information from the investigation, including the recording of our meeting on 19 May 2023.
• Ms Johnstone said she considered it significant Y's incident report did not refer to telling her X was unconscious, emailing in response to a copy that it had (quoted wording omitted) ZXY concluded Ms Johnstone had seen an opportunity to shift responsibility to Y.
• The Authority found hindsight unfairly informed ZXY's conclusion there was an obvious need to call an ambulance that Ms Johnstone had negligently failed to recognise, and ZXY did not investigate the extent to which any gaps in its policy, procedures and practice could have contributed to what happened.
• Unjustified Dismissal Having considered the factors under s 103A of the Act and the circumstances in this case, The Authority found ZXY's dismissal of Ms Johnstone and how it went about it were not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

Decision markers

• The Authority was satisfied that this element of the allegation has been established.
• The Authority found this approach prevented Ms Knowles from genuinely considering the explanations provided by Ms Johnstone about what had happened and what she knew (or did not know) at the time.
• The Authority found hindsight unfairly informed ZXY's conclusion there was an obvious need to call an ambulance that Ms Johnstone had negligently failed to recognise, and ZXY did not investigate the extent to which any gaps in its policy, procedures and practice could have contributed to what happened.
• Unjustified Dismissal Having considered the factors under s 103A of the Act and the circumstances in this case, The Authority found ZXY's dismissal of Ms Johnstone and how it went about it were not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $25,000
• Lost wages: Three months'

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

• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.