Julie Curtis v Affordable UK Caravans and Parts Limited [2026] NZERA 46

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about constructive dismissal and unpaid entitlements. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

The employee was employed to clean caravans. The written employment agreement (signed in November 2022) set normal hours as Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 12:30pm. In practice, she worked four hours per day, five days per week (20 hours per week).

The employee went off work for surgery in October 2024. She and the employer agreed she would take annual leave to cover her recovery period, and she remained on full pay through the week ending 6 November 2024. After that, the employer told her by message that it could not pay wages due to cashflow and suggested she go to WINZ. She then received no pay for several later weeks, despite still receiving payslips.

In late November 2024, the employer messaged saying there was a delay in deliveries and a market slowdown, and asked her to "hold off" returning to work until mid-January 2025. When the employee later advised she had medical clearance to return on 2 December 2024 and asked if she would be paid her contracted hours in the meantime, the employer replied: "No. You get paid when you work."

The employee's representative wrote to the employer on 16 December 2024 alleging repudiation and constructive dismissal, and requesting reasons for dismissal and wage/time and holiday/leave records. The employer did not respond to that letter (or later requests for final pay).

What the Authority had to decide

• Whether the employer could rely on an alleged "flexibility" understanding about hours, or whether the written agreement controlled the hours of work.
• Whether the employer lawfully varied the agreement by telling the employee to stay away from work until mid-January without pay.
• Whether the employer's conduct amounted to a constructive dismissal (repudiation accepted by the employee).
• Whether the dismissal was justifiable under the s 103A test (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances).
• Remedies: reimbursement and compensation, plus recovery of wages and holiday pay arrears, interest, and penalties for record-keeping and holiday pay breaches.

Key findings in plain English

Money: what the employer was ordered to pay

The Authority made the following orders (all payable within 28 days of 28 January 2026, unless otherwise stated):

Why this case matters

• Cashflow does not excuse non-payment: if an employee is ready and able to work under an existing agreement, an employer cannot simply say "no work, no pay" without properly consulting and following lawful processes (including any restructure/redundancy process if relevant).
• Do not rely on vague "understandings": if the written agreement fixes hours, a claimed pre-contract understanding about flexibility is unlikely to override the signed terms.
• Ignoring correspondence makes things worse: failing to respond to written requests for reasons, records, and final pay can lead to penalties and damages credibility.
• Final pay obligations are strict: holiday pay must be paid when employment ends, and withholding wages/entitlements can lead to arrears and interest.

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.