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
Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Browse topics