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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...

Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union summarily dismissed its CEO, Steven David Mitchell, for alleged serious misconduct. In this interim decision, the ERA did not finally determine the allegations. It found, however, that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable unjustified-dismissal case, including an arguable predetermination concern arising from a review process, how that review later fed into the disciplinary process, and Board communications that could indicate adverse and personalised views had formed before the decision. The Authority held that the new 2026 remedies amendments applied, but could not make definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings at the interim stage. It ordered immediate reinstatement to payroll only, backdated to 21 March 2026, while reserving the substantive merits hearing...

Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited [2026] NZERA 436 - medical incapacity dismissal without a fair inquiry

Friendly Loans Limited dismissed Filisi Beswick for medical incapacity less than four weeks after she had been admitted to hospital with blurred vision and migraines. On the day of dismissal, she had told the company that her medical position had improved, that she had a negative Covid test, a valid driver licence and an updated medical certificate. She asked for a face-to-face meeting and to discuss work from home. The ERA held the company could not reasonably conclude she was incapable of her ongoing duties, had not sought her input, had not allowed sufficient recovery time, and had not considered alternatives. It also held a $2,439.09 loan deduction from final pay unlawful. The Authority ordered $24,436.09 in total...

Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Browse topics