ClickCease

Next Generation Homes stopped providing Mr Maiorenko with work and ceased communicating with him after he queried pay and future work. The case concerned whether that conduct itself ended the employment relationship and what wage arrears remained outstanding.

The short answer

The ERA held the cessation of work and communication amounted to an unjustified dismissal and a breach of good faith. Maiorenko received $12,000 compensation, $7,000 gross lost wages and $1,500 gross wage arrears plus holiday pay and interest; costs were reserved.


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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics