ClickCease

MAIORENKO v NEXT GENERATION HOMES LIMITED [2026] NZERA 28 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $12,000 compensation; $7,000 lost wages; wage arrears ordered.

The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified. On 22 December 2024 Mr Maiorenko sent an email to Mr Astashkin requesting payment of wages and requesting details about his next job.


MAIORENKO v NEXT GENERATION HOMES LIMITED [2026] NZERA 28

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 28
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: MAIORENKO v NEXT GENERATION HOMES LIMITED
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld.

Story in plain English

The employee sought clarity about payment and upcoming work. The Authority found the employer stopped providing work and stopped communicating after 18 December 2024, and that this amounted to an unjustified dismissal. The Authority made orders for compensation, lost wages, and wage arrears (plus holiday pay), with interest ordered on certain sums. Costs were reserved.

Key case markers

  • Authority member: Simon Greening.
  • Personal grievance type: unjustified dismissal.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • On 22 December 2024 Mr Maiorenko sent an email to Mr Astashkin requesting payment of wages and requesting details about his next job.
  • The Authority's investigation [16] Mr Maiorenko lodged a statement of problem with the Authority on 14 February 2025.
  • Following the second CMC, the Authority emailed directions dated 2 September 2025 to the parties.
  • At my direction the investigation meeting commenced 15 minutes after the advised start time to accommodate possible lateness on the part of NGH.
  • NGH also breached its statutory obligation to deal with Mr Maiorenko in good faith by not communicating with him after 18 December 2024.4 [31] It follows that Mr Maiorenko was unjustifiably dismissed when NGH no longer provided work or communicated with him after 18 December 2024.
  • At the investigation meeting Mr Maiorenko described the personal impact of the dismissal.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • The Authority held the employer breached good faith by failing to communicate with the employee after 18 December 2024.
  • The cessation of work and communication amounted to an unjustified dismissal.
  • Wage arrears and holiday pay were ordered.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $12,000.
  • Lost wages: $7,000 gross.
  • Wage arrears: $1,500 gross (for 60 hours), plus 8 percent holiday pay on gross earnings since commencement (including the arrears).
  • Interest: Interest ordered on the wage arrears and lost wages sums.
  • Costs: Reserved.
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
Xiaoshuai Huang v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 224 - courier driver held to be employee; constructive dismissal after ACC pressure; $26,146.26 ordered

A parcel courier driver was treated by the company as an independent contractor, but the ERA found the real relationship was employment due to app-based control, penalties and lack of genuine independence. After the driver was bitten by a dog and applied to ACC, the manager pressed him to...

Ziyu Xiao and Youtian Yang, and Limei Liu v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 222 - delivery drivers cut off via app/WhatsApp after complaints; unjustified dismissals and disadvantage; $54,500 ordered

Three courier/warehouse workers were found to be employees in an earlier preliminary decision. In this follow-up, the ERA held two drivers were unjustifiably dismissed when they were blocked from the dispatch app after one complained about a manager's verbal abuse, and a third worker was...

ZiGen Wong v NZAT Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 193 - employee status found despite no visa; $18,187.50 wage arrears + $1,455 holiday pay; constructive dismissal upheld

A labourer worked regular 7am-5pm hours at $25/hour but was not paid for 17 weeks. The employer denied knowing him and did not participate. Applying s 6 and the Bryson control/integration/economic reality tests, the ERA found he was a permanent employee, calculated wage arrears at $18,187.50...

Tracy Alpar v Bookieland Limited [2026] NZERA 191 - unsigned seasonal fixed term not enforceable; dismissal by WhatsApp; $12,000 compensation and $14,000 reimbursement

A chef at the Mussel Pot in Havelock worked under seasonal winter shutdowns and was given unsigned fixed term agreements that did not comply with s 66. After the 2024 shutdown, the employer's WhatsApp communications indicated she was no longer required, and she discovered recruiting posts for a...

Gaetan Duvaux v Mega Limited [2026] NZERA 182 - redundancy dismissal unjustified on process; pre-selection and withheld scoring; $8,000 compensation plus three months' pay ordered

A senior web developer was made redundant in a large technology department restructure. The ERA accepted the commercial drivers, but found a material process defect: Mega applied the selection criteria before consultation, did not provide the employee's scores, and did not let him meaningfully...

Craig (Andrew) Campbell v Qube Ports NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 174 - interim reinstatement ordered after medical incapacity dismissal; asthma/dust exposure dispute

A Port of Tauranga stevedore was dismissed for medical incapacity after an asthma flare during palm kernel bulk work. The ERA held there was a serious question to be tried about whether the employer overstated the dust risk and failed to consider modified duties, and it ordered interim...

Browse topics