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
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