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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics