ClickCease

Lautusi Isaako v ABS Builders Limited [2025] NZERA 678 - Employee status confirmed, dismissal by text, 3 months lost wages, $15k compensation, holiday pay arrears, costs

In Lautusi Isaako v ABS Builders Limited [2025] NZERA 678 (Auckland), the ERA found Mr Isaako was an employee (not a contractor) and was unjustifiably dismissed by a text message. The Authority ordered $15,210 gross reimbursement of 3 months lost wages, $15,000 compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings, plus holiday pay arrears ($1,684.80 annual holidays and $1,275 public holidays). No penalties were ordered. Costs of $2,250 and filing fee reimbursement of $71.55 were awarded.


This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Lautusi Isaako v ABS Builders Limited [2025] NZERA 678 (Auckland, Member Andrew Gane, determination dated 24 October 2025).

At a glance: ABS argued Mr Isaako was an independent contractor and had left voluntarily. The ERA rejected that, found he was an employee, and held he was unjustifiably dismissed by a text message. Significant remedies were awarded, including 3 months lost wages, $15,000 compensation, holiday pay arrears, and costs.
Direct link to the full ERA determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2025/2025-NZERA-678.pdf

Quick facts

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 678
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Member: Andrew Gane
  • Investigation meeting: 19 August 2025 (no appearance for ABS)
  • Determination date: 24 October 2025
  • Applicant: Lautusi Isaako
  • Respondent: ABS Builders Limited

What happened

Mr Isaako started work for ABS on 5 February 2024 as a builder, on $30 per hour. He said he worked full-time and ongoing (typically 7am to 4pm, five to six days per week), and his daily tasks were directed by a leading hand (Mr Lam). He said he never received a written employment agreement.

On 7 June 2024, Mr Isaako phoned to say he could not attend work because he needed to repair his truck. Later that evening he received a text message from Mr Lam terminating his employment and telling him to find work elsewhere. The message also alleged his work was below standard, but the ERA recorded this was the first time he had been told there were any performance issues.

Mr Isaako raised a personal grievance (PG) on 18 June 2024. ABS's general manager initially admitted by email (1 July 2024) the termination was done in an unjustified manner, but later changed position and claimed Mr Isaako was a subcontractor or occasional worker.

Process failure: The termination was by text, with no warning, no review, and no opportunity to respond. That is a classic procedural failure under the s 103A justification test.

Employee or contractor?

A key issue was whether Mr Isaako was really an employee or a contractor. The ERA applied the statutory "real nature of the relationship" test (s 6), considering intention, how the relationship operated in practice, and the control, integration and "in business on your own account" factors.

  • Control: Mr Isaako had no real control over hours, location, or tasks; he was directed day-to-day.
  • Integration: He worked exclusively in ABS's business and was treated as part of the on-site workforce.
  • Fundamental test: He was paid an hourly rate comparable to employment, not a higher contractor rate, and was not running his own enterprise.

The ERA accepted Mr Isaako's evidence and found the parties intended an employment relationship from 5 February 2024.

Summary of orders (money)

Payable within 28 days of 24 October 2025

Order Amount
Reimbursement of lost wages (3 months salary) (gross) $15,210.00
Compensation for hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings $15,000.00
Annual holiday pay (8% for 18 weeks) (gross) $1,684.80
Public holiday pay (5 days) (gross) $1,275.00
Costs contribution $2,250.00
Reimbursement of filing fee $71.55
Total ordered to be paid to applicant $35,491.35
Note: The lost wages and holiday pay figures are gross amounts.

Holiday pay arrears

The ERA found ABS failed to pay public holiday pay and annual holiday entitlements, and failed to provide accurate wage and time records. The Authority accepted Mr Isaako's calculations and ordered the arrears to be paid.

  • Public holidays: 5 public holidays at 8.5 hours per day (Waitangi Day, Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day, Kings Birthday) totalling $1,275 gross.
  • Annual holidays: 8% annual holiday pay for 18 weeks calculated on $1,170 per week (total $21,060 x 8% = $1,684.80 gross).

Penalties and offsets

Penalties were not awarded. The ERA held penalty claims under the Holidays Act 2003 and Wages Protection Act 1983 were time-barred (raised outside the 12-month time limit), and the wage and time records breach was not sufficiently serious in this case to warrant a penalty.

ABS also alleged Mr Isaako owed money for remedial work, but there was no counterclaim before the ERA and therefore no offset could be made.

Costs

The ERA applied the standard daily tariff approach. Because the investigation was completed in half a day, the starting point was $2,250. ABS did not participate at the investigation meeting, and the ERA ordered $2,250 in costs plus reimbursement of the $71.55 filing fee.

Practical takeaways for employers and employees

  • Contractor labels do not decide status: The ERA will look at the real nature of the relationship (control, integration, and whether the worker is in business on their own account).
  • Text message dismissal is high risk: Ending employment by message, without a fair process, is very likely to be unjustified.
  • Performance concerns must be raised and managed: If there are performance issues, the employee must be told and given a fair opportunity to improve and respond.
  • Keep wage and time records: Poor recordkeeping creates arrears exposure and can support remedies. It can also lead to penalties where the breach is serious.
  • Holiday pay compliance matters: Public holiday pay and annual holiday entitlements must be paid correctly, and final pay obligations cannot be avoided by changing the narrative to "contractor".
  • Penalty time limits: If you want penalties, you must plead them within the statutory time limit. Waiting until closing submissions can be fatal.

Read the full determination

This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Open [2025] NZERA 678 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with an unfair dismissal or a contractor vs employee dispute? If you are dealing with a personal grievance (PG), status dispute, or remedies negotiation, we can help with strategy, drafting, and representation in the ERA.

Contact Employee Case Form

Read more
Unfair Dismissal Cases Responding to a Personal Grievance
0800 WIN KIWI

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

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics