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
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics