KALKAT v EASY RECRUITMENT LIMITED T/A EASY RECRUIT [2025] NZERA 257

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 (partly successful).

In summary, Mr Kalkat alleges he was unjustifiably dismissed and is seeking remedies of compensation and lost wages. After that, An investigation meeting was initially set down for 22 November 2024 by audio visual link (AVL) to accommodate both parties. Later, In other emails of 2 and 4 September 2024 Mr Wanhalla stated various allegations about Mr Kalkat. The determination records that The Authority's investigation [9] At the investigation meeting that was rescheduled to 7 April 2025. The Authority notes that No immediate communication occurred between the parties and Mr Kalkat, through his advocate, raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal by letter of 8 January 2024. Ultimately, The letter of response detailed an additional ground for the dismissal suggesting that the employer Mr Kalkat had been placed with (Linfox) had ascertained he was not performing up to their standards and they intended to terminate the employment. In the end, The letter also clarified the time keeping issue alleged in the dismissal letter, claiming Mr Kalkat had left work (quoted wording omitted).

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are KALKAT (employee) and EASY RECRUITMENT LIMITED T/A EASY RECRUIT (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 7 April 2025 (by audio visual link).
• Authority member: David Beck.

Key events described

• Mr Kalkat alleges he was unjustifiably dismissed and is seeking remedies of compensation and lost wages.
• An investigation meeting was initially set down for 22 November 2024 by audio visual link (AVL) to accommodate both parties.
• In other emails of 2 and 4 September 2024 Mr Wanhalla stated various allegations about Mr Kalkat.
• The Authority's investigation [9] At the investigation meeting that was rescheduled to 7 April 2025.
• No immediate communication occurred between the parties and Mr Kalkat, through his advocate, raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal by letter of 8 January 2024.
• The letter of response detailed an additional ground for the dismissal suggesting that the employer Mr Kalkat had been placed with (Linfox) had ascertained he was not performing up to their standards and they intended to terminate the employment.
• The letter also clarified the time keeping issue alleged in the dismissal letter, claiming Mr Kalkat had left work (quoted wording omitted).
• In the absence of any adherence to basic procedural fairness steps, including not giving Mr Kalkat an opportunity to be heard, The Authority found this was an unjustified dismissal.
• The exchange of emails between the parties of 16 October 2023 (allegedly threatening in tone) should have been dealt with at the time and Mr Kalkat had a reasonable explanation for his leaving early on his last day of work in 2023 yet being paid for the remainder of the day (an hour at the most).
• The fact that Mr Kalkat was engaged for temporary assignments is not an exculpatory fact as he was dismissed by ERL and not because his assignment with Linfox was terminated by them.

Decision markers

• In the absence of any adherence to basic procedural fairness steps, including not giving Mr Kalkat an opportunity to be heard, The Authority found this was an unjustified dismissal.
• Finding [28] In all the circumstances The Authority found Mr Kalkat was unjustifiably dismissed on a procedural and substantive basis and he is entitled to consideration of remedies sought.
• Section 123(1)(b) of the Act provides for the reimbursement of the whole or any part of wages or other money lost by Mr Kalkat should The Authority found that he has established a personal grievance.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $9,000
• Costs: Costs awarded.

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.