Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine, documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance and safety. But it knew English was a serious communication barrier, used English for critical disciplinary communications despite both men speaking Punjabi, and did not clearly tell Mr Singh what further response or improvement plan it expected before dismissal. The Employment Relations Authority found both the dismissal and the preceding suspension unjustified.

Performance and safety concerns

Mr Singh worked as a delivery driver from July 2023. From late October, PR Kahlon raised concerns including incomplete deliveries, failure to scan freight, missing or inaccurate proof-of-delivery records, pallet returns, vehicle logbooks, freight damage and driving incidents. Some incidents involved damage to customer property and bans from customer sites.

The company provided additional hands-on training, repeated instructions, used both English and Punjabi in workplace chat, issued a performance review or written warning in November 2023, and sent a final written warning in May 2024. The Authority accepted that the concerns were supported by contemporaneous evidence and were sufficiently serious to justify a performance process.

Injury and postponed performance meeting

A further meeting was proposed in May 2024, but Mr Singh suffered a non-work knee injury and supplied an ACC form declaring him unfit for 14 days. After his advocate became involved, the employer supplied an agenda and held a formal meeting on 10 June. Mr Singh said he did not remember or understand that he was on a performance improvement plan.

At the meeting, the employer proposed another warning and a short improvement plan. Mr Singh then alleged that he had not been paid for all hours worked. The company regarded this as a diversion and serious conflict. The following day his advocate said he was fit and requested that he be rostered.

Suspended after raising pay concerns

PR Kahlon replied that Mr Singh could not return until it saw a positive approach to fixing the performance issues, referring also to the “fake allegations” raised at the meeting. The correspondence directed him to remain away but did not invite comment, request feedback or explain that the decision could be reconsidered.

The Authority found an unjustified suspension from 11 to 18 June due to the lack of consultation. The employment agreement required suspension to be on full pay, yet the final payslip recorded no ordinary hours for that week. Six days' contractual pay was assessed at $1,245.72 gross before contribution.

Dismissal without a clear opportunity to respond

PR Kahlon dismissed Mr Singh with immediate effect on 18 June. The dismissal letter said he had not commented on the serious issues at the meeting and had not provided a plan to fix them. The employer said it could not compromise road safety or client interests.

The Authority accepted that PR Kahlon had investigated sufficiently, had real concerns, and had raised those concerns. The problem was whether Mr Singh genuinely understood their seriousness and had been given a reasonable chance to answer before dismissal.

Mr Satpal Singh himself described Mr Singh's limited English as a serious barrier to safe and efficient performance. Yet the employer chose to communicate the formal performance and disciplinary material in English when both men could communicate in Punjabi. The Authority did not accept that Mr Singh knew nothing about the problems, but found it likely that he did not understand how seriously they were viewed or that continued problems could end his employment.

The expected next step after the 10 June meeting was also unclear. The employer believed it was waiting for a substantive response and improvement plan; Mr Singh and his advocate did not understand that this was required. The correspondence did not clearly express that opportunity. The company therefore failed to give a reasonable opportunity to respond or genuinely consider an explanation before dismissing him.

Contribution for established performance failures

The procedural unfairness did not erase Mr Singh's conduct. Photographs and records supported vehicle damage, unsafe driving incidents and repeated failures to scan deliveries correctly. Safe driving did not depend on English proficiency, and the employer had made repeated training efforts over several months. A 25 percent reduction was made to the remedies for contribution.

Remedies

Three months' ordinary remuneration was assessed at $13,495.30 gross before contribution. Compensation was assessed at $17,000 for dismissal plus $1,000 for the unjustified suspension. Mr Singh described reliance on his partner and local temple for support, social withdrawal, and difficulty coping without work. After the 25 percent reduction, the operative orders were $10,121.48 gross lost remuneration and $13,500 compensation.

The suspension-wage award was reduced to $934.29 gross. The separate claims for earlier wage arrears, holiday pay, unlawful deductions and penalties were not established. No recovery order was made against Mr Satpal Singh personally.

Why this case matters

A dismissal can be unjustified even where the employer proves substantial performance and safety concerns. The fairness question is not simply whether problems existed; it is whether the employee understood the allegations and possible consequences, received a clear opportunity to answer, and had that answer genuinely considered. Communication must be adapted to a language barrier the employer already knows about.

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.