ClickCease

KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZERA 132 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. The investigator's report concluded that there were breaches of FENZ's Standards of Conduct Policy by all three.


KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZERA 132

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 132
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND
  • Authority member: Jeremy Lynch
  • Hearing date: 3 and 4 December 2024 (2 days)
  • Determination date: 4 March 2025
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, The investigator's report concluded that there were breaches of FENZ's Standards of Conduct Policy by all three. After that, In addition, Mr Kinzett was found to have breached FENZ's Policy to Address Bullying, Harassment and Victimisation. Later, The report led to disciplinary action against Mr Kinzett, ultimately resulting in his summary dismissal on 6 May 2024. The determination records that His evidence is that the (quoted wording omitted) [56] The Investigation Report also found three instances in which Firefighter A had breached the Standards of Conduct Policy, and had bullied Mr Kinzett. The Authority notes that Disciplinary Process [57] On 5 February 2024 FENZ invited Mr Kinzett to a meeting to discuss the findings of the Investigation Report. Ultimately, On 19 April 2024 FENZ held a meeting to receive Mr Kinzett's feedback on its preliminary decision to dismiss. In the end, By letter dated 6 May 2024, FENZ then confirmed its decision to dismiss Mr Kinzett on a summary basis.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are KINZETT (employee) and FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 3 and 4 December 2024 (2 days).
  • Authority member: Jeremy Lynch.

Key events described

  • The investigator's report concluded that there were breaches of FENZ's Standards of Conduct Policy by all three.
  • In addition, Mr Kinzett was found to have breached FENZ's Policy to Address Bullying, Harassment and Victimisation.
  • The report led to disciplinary action against Mr Kinzett, ultimately resulting in his summary dismissal on 6 May 2024.
  • His evidence is that the (quoted wording omitted) [56] The Investigation Report also found three instances in which Firefighter A had breached the Standards of Conduct Policy, and had bullied Mr Kinzett.
  • Disciplinary Process [57] On 5 February 2024 FENZ invited Mr Kinzett to a meeting to discuss the findings of the Investigation Report.
  • On 19 April 2024 FENZ held a meeting to receive Mr Kinzett's feedback on its preliminary decision to dismiss.
  • By letter dated 6 May 2024, FENZ then confirmed its decision to dismiss Mr Kinzett on a summary basis.
  • In addition, The Authority found that the decision to investigate Mr Kinzett's complaints together with all the complaints laid by Firefighters A and B was justified in the circumstances.
  • On 5 February 2024 FENZ invited Mr Kinzett to a disciplinary meeting to discuss the findings of the Investigation Report.
  • The 12 April 2024 letter from FENZ shows that the decisionmaker had considered the feedback provided by Mr Kinzett, and rather than accepting the Investigation Report in full, Mr Guard found that one of the allegations against Mr Kinzett could not be substantiated.
  • From 5 February 2024 when FENZ commenced its own disciplinary investigation upon receipt of the Investigation Report, until Mr Kinzett's dismissal, was 13 weeks, during which time Mr Kinzett was in the workplace, performing his normal duties.
  • A finding is made that Mr Kinzett was unjustifiably dismissed by FENZ by its letter dated 6 May 2024.

Decision markers

  • The Authority found that any disadvantage to Mr Kinzett's employment in respect of the investigation process undertaken by FENZ (including as to the timing of its commencement), was justifiable in the circumstances.
  • In addition, The Authority found that the decision to investigate Mr Kinzett's complaints together with all the complaints laid by Firefighters A and B was justified in the circumstances.
  • Remedies [123] Mr Kinzett has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $9,600
  • Lost wages: A quantifiable amount "lost wages under s 123(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the period between his summary dismissal on 6 May 2024 and his interim reinstatement on 17 July 2024, plus account for holiday pay on this sum, and ensuring KiwiSaver obligations (if applicable) are met"

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

  • Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
  • Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

Browse topics