LAZARO v WAIMEA CONTRACT CARRIERS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 472

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, Mr Lazaro says that in a meeting on 4 December 2023 WCC dismissed him. After that, WCC says it did not dismiss Mr Lazaro, but it did discuss with him the limited options available given his need for further training and it suspended him on full pay until Mr Lazaro considered the options and advised what he wished to do. Later, Mr Lazaro never returned to work for WCC claiming he was dismissed on 4 December 2023. The determination records that WCC says he was dismissed by it, but this was on 15 December 2023 by which time Mr Lazaro had refused to return to work to undergo further training. The Authority notes that As well as being dismissed by WCC, Mr Lazaro alleges he was harassed during the time he worked there; he says that Filipino colleagues abused him and the WCC trainers harassed him. Ultimately, The Authority's investigation [8] I investigated this employment relationship problem by receiving written evidence and documents, holding an investigation meeting on 5 February 2025 and 13 February 2025 and assessing the written submissions of the parties' representatives. In the end, Ms McIntyre responded to this email with a letter the next day, 5 December 2023.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are LAZARO (employee) and WAIMEA CONTRACT CARRIERS LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 5 and 13 February 2025 (2 days).
• Authority member: Peter van Keulen.

Key events described

• Mr Lazaro says that in a meeting on 4 December 2023 WCC dismissed him.
• WCC says it did not dismiss Mr Lazaro, but it did discuss with him the limited options available given his need for further training and it suspended him on full pay until Mr Lazaro considered the options and advised what he wished to do.
• Mr Lazaro never returned to work for WCC claiming he was dismissed on 4 December 2023.
• WCC says he was dismissed by it, but this was on 15 December 2023 by which time Mr Lazaro had refused to return to work to undergo further training.
• As well as being dismissed by WCC, Mr Lazaro alleges he was harassed during the time he worked there; he says that Filipino colleagues abused him and the WCC trainers harassed him.
• The Authority's investigation [8] I investigated this employment relationship problem by receiving written evidence and documents, holding an investigation meeting on 5 February 2025 and 13 February 2025 and assessing the written submissions of the parties' representatives.
• Ms McIntyre responded to this email with a letter the next day, 5 December 2023.
• As Mr Lazaro had made it clear he considered he had been dismissed and would not return to work to undertake the proposed training, WCC treated him as having abandoned his work and terminated his employment.
• The Authority accepted that in the phone call with Ms Gorit after the 4 December 2023 meeting, Mr Lazaro told Ms Gorit that he had been terminated.
• As an example, when Ms McIntyre pointed out in her letter of 5 December 2023 that Mr Lazaro was still employed, he refused to accept that and simply referred to Mr Lazaro as having been dismissed.
• This became his memory of the 4 December 2023 meeting. (i) Mr Lazaro called Ms Gorit and told her that Ms McIntyre had terminated him.
• Conclusion on dismissal [81] The Authority concluded that WCC did not intend to dismiss Mr Lazaro and there was no unequivocal sending away of Mr Lazaro by Ms McIntyre in the 4 December 2023 meeting.

Decision markers

• Overall, The Authority found that the WCC witnesses were more credible, and their evidence was more consistent.
• Conclusion on dismissal [81] The Authority concluded that WCC did not intend to dismiss Mr Lazaro and there was no unequivocal sending away of Mr Lazaro by Ms McIntyre in the 4 December 2023 meeting.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Notice pay: $44,000
• Costs: Costs reserved.

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

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.