LYONS v ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL [2025] NZERA 467

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

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, Letters and emails [17] the employer's first formal communication raising its concerns was on 21 November 2023 when Mr Pitkethley emailed Mr Lyons a letter inviting him to a meeting on 23 November 2023 to discuss concerns about his absences. After that, The next letter was sent on 1 December 2023 for a meeting on 5 December 2023. Later, On 6 December 2023, the employer sent a letter to Mr Lyons summarising the meeting, outlining the employer's expectations and outlining a return-to-work plan. The determination records that The fourth letter was emailed to Mr Lyons on 17 January 2024 for a meeting on 23 January 2024. The Authority notes that Both the email and the letter of 17 January 2024 sent to Mr Lyons gave him the option to reschedule the meeting to a more suitable time if he wished and that Mr Pitkethley could come to Tauranga to meet closer to Mr Lyons' home if travel was an issue for him. Ultimately, The 17 January 2024 letter was titled an (quoted wording omitted) and its purpose was (quoted wording omitted). In the end, the employer held the meeting in Mr Lyons' absence and later that same day advised him by email and letter of his summary dismissal.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are LYONS (employee) and ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 2 May 2025.
• Authority member: Helen van Druten.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Letters and emails [17] the employer's first formal communication raising its concerns was on 21 November 2023 when Mr Pitkethley emailed Mr Lyons a letter inviting him to a meeting on 23 November 2023 to discuss concerns about his absences.
• The next letter was sent on 1 December 2023 for a meeting on 5 December 2023.
• On 6 December 2023, the employer sent a letter to Mr Lyons summarising the meeting, outlining the employer's expectations and outlining a return-to-work plan.
• The fourth letter was emailed to Mr Lyons on 17 January 2024 for a meeting on 23 January 2024.
• Both the email and the letter of 17 January 2024 sent to Mr Lyons gave him the option to reschedule the meeting to a more suitable time if he wished and that Mr Pitkethley could come to Tauranga to meet closer to Mr Lyons' home if travel was an issue for him.
• The 17 January 2024 letter was titled an (quoted wording omitted) and its purpose was (quoted wording omitted).
• Underlined in the 17 January 2024 letter was notification that (quoted wording omitted).
• the employer held the meeting in Mr Lyons' absence and later that same day advised him by email and letter of his summary dismissal.
• This includes the letter sent on 17 January 2024 and subsequent decision to dismiss Mr Lyon in his absence.
• He told Mr Pitkethley he would be at work on the 23 January 2024 the day prior and had given no indication he may be too unwell to attend the meeting; f. the letter sent on 17 January 2024 was titled both an investigative and a disciplinary meeting.
• This was misleading and unhelpful but as the letter underlined and emphasised that Mr Lyons' employment may be terminated, this error did not result in Mr Lyons being treated unfairly.4 [40] Substantively, however, the decision to dismiss without notice raised concerns.
• Failing to report by telephone to your supervisor [41] Despite the alleged breaches being listed as misconduct under the code of conduct, the employer decided to summarily dismiss Mr Lyons for serious misconduct based on a breach of trust and confidence.
• The decision by the employer to summarily dismiss Mr Lyons on 23 January 2024 on the grounds of serious misconduct was out of proportion to the allegations made and did not follow the documented the employer process.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

• Lost wages / arrears: $7,500
• Costs: $71.55

Practical takeaways

• 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.