ClickCease

Allied Auto Parts dismissed Mr Mon by text message and required him to work out two weeks' notice. The employer later relied on concerns about working from home and other matters, but no proper disciplinary or dismissal process had been carried out.

The short answer

The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and found no blameworthy conduct by Mr Mon contributing to it. He was awarded $16,016 lost remuneration and $18,000 compensation, with costs reserved.


MON v ALLIED AUTO PARTS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 590

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 590
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: MON v ALLIED AUTO PARTS LIMITED
  • Authority member: Claire English
  • Hearing date: 4 February 2025
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, Mr Mon was dismissed by text message on 19 July 2023, and his employment came to an end two weeks later on 2 August 2023 after Mr Mon had worked out his notice period. After that, Mr Bator says that he was dismissed because he wanted to work from home and had asked for a letter ending his employment. Later, It will be apparent immediately that none of these steps occurred, as Mr Bator simply texted Mr Mon stating that he was dismissed on 19 July 2023, and setting out that he would receive 2 weeks' notice. The determination records that Mr Mon has still not obtained a new job in the period from his dismissal in August 2023 though to the date of the investigation meeting being some 18 months. The Authority notes that Likewise, although Mr Bator raised concerns about Mr Mon's partial payment for car parts and/or some tools, this was not pursued at the investigation meeting, with both parties agreeing that this had resulted in the deduction of monies from Mr Mon's final pay, rather than being the cause of his dismissal. Ultimately, Accordingly, The Authority found that Mr Mon's actions did not contribute to his dismissal.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are MON (employee) and ALLIED AUTO PARTS LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 4 February 2025.
  • Authority member: Claire English.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • Mr Mon was dismissed by text message on 19 July 2023, and his employment came to an end two weeks later on 2 August 2023 after Mr Mon had worked out his notice period.
  • Mr Bator says that he was dismissed because he wanted to work from home and had asked for a letter ending his employment.
  • Raising of the personal grievance [22] Although Mr Mon's last day of work was 2 August 2023, he did not raise his personal grievance until his lawyer sent a letter to Allied on 17 January 2024.
  • It will be apparent immediately that none of these steps occurred, as Mr Bator simply texted Mr Mon stating that he was dismissed on 19 July 2023, and setting out that he would receive 2 weeks' notice.
  • Mr Mon has still not obtained a new job in the period from his dismissal in August 2023 though to the date of the investigation meeting being some 18 months.
  • Likewise, although Mr Bator raised concerns about Mr Mon's partial payment for car parts and/or some tools, this was not pursued at the investigation meeting, with both parties agreeing that this had resulted in the deduction of monies from Mr Mon's final pay, rather than being the cause of his dismissal.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • Accordingly, The Authority found that Mr Mon's actions did not contribute to his dismissal.
  • In light of this admission, The Authority found that no wages are property owing, and no orders are made.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $18,000
  • Lost wages / arrears: $16,016.00
  • Costs: Costs reserved.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

  • Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
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, Redundancy
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics