ClickCease

MTY v Transport (Waimate) Limited [2025] NZERA 510 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $57,298.10 remedies (costs reserved)

The ERA found the employer dismissed an anonymised truck driver by effectively "running dead" after a heated meeting, then leaving him suspended without pay while the director was overseas. Unjustified dismissal was upheld and the Authority ordered $24,000 compensation, $30,558.84 lost remuneration, plus KiwiSaver and licence cost reimbursement (costs reserved).


MTY v Transport (Waimate) Limited [2025] NZERA 510

A practical summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) unjustified dismissal determination, with the full decision embedded below. This page is information only - it is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 510
  • Parties: MTY (anonymised employee) v Transport (Waimate) Limited (employer)
  • Authority member: Peter van Keulen
  • Investigation meeting: 22 May 2025 (Investigation Meeting, Timaru)
  • Date of determination: 22 August 2025
  • Result: Unjustified dismissal upheld; significant monetary remedies ordered; costs reserved
  • Publication note: The Authority made a non-publication order for the applicant's identity because untested allegations (for example drug use) were raised in evidence and could unfairly taint reputation.

What the case was about

The employee (a truck driver) raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. The employer argued there had been no dismissal at all, saying the employee resigned during a meeting. The key legal question became: did the employer's actions amount to a "sending away" (dismissal), or was it at least reasonable for the employee to understand he had been sent away?

What happened

The background problem started with a private speeding fine that carried enough demerit points to risk a licence suspension. The employee surrendered his licence and applied for a limited licence so he could keep working. The employer supported that application.

When the employee returned for a meeting on 31 January 2024, he says he was blindsided: instead of a simple return-to-work discussion, he was confronted with a string of allegations (including alleged drug use and poor work practices) and told he would need to pass a drug test and accept restrictions. The meeting deteriorated into a heated argument. The employee walked out and said words to the effect of "I'll see you in court".

Almost immediately, the employee sent a text message apologising and asking to meet again to discuss return-to-work conditions. The employer did not respond. Over the following weeks, the employer did not facilitate a return to work. Later, when the employee came to the office, he was given a printed email which, in effect, suspended him without pay until the managing director returned from holiday overseas. The managing director then did not contact the employee when he returned.

The employee saw job advertisements for his role and a new driver operating the truck he usually drove. He took the view he had been dismissed and raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. The employer replied stating (among other things) that the employee had resigned in the January meeting.

ERA findings

The Authority was satisfied that the employer's conduct, viewed as a whole, amounted to a sending away. The decision records multiple steps that created and maintained the "no job" status quo: imposing unilateral conditions, ignoring the apology and request for further discussion, and then using a printed email to suspend the employee without pay while the director was away.

On that basis the Authority found there was a dismissal, and it was unjustified. The Authority also considered "contribution" (whether the employee's conduct should reduce remedies) and found no contribution: while the employee behaved poorly in the meeting, it did not cause the dismissal and did not justify reducing remedies.

Remedies ordered

The Authority ordered the employer to pay the following sums to the employee:

  • Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $24,000.00
  • Lost remuneration: $30,558.84 (six months of average weekly wage, awarded as reimbursement)
  • KiwiSaver contributions on the reimbursement: $916.76
  • Reimbursement of limited licence costs: $1,822.50
  • Total quantified remedies: $57,298.10

Costs were reserved. The decision records that if costs cannot be agreed, the applicant may file a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the determination date, with 14 days for the employer to reply.

Practical takeaways

  • "Sending away" can be found without the employer using the word "dismissed": the Authority will look at the totality of actions and whether the employee was effectively shut out from work.
  • Unilateral conditions and radio silence can backfire: if an employer blocks a return to work and does not follow a fair process, a dismissal finding can follow.
  • Contribution is not automatic: even if an employee behaves badly in a meeting, remedies may not be reduced unless that conduct actually contributed to the unjustified action.
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
Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).

Lillian Shorter v Waiheke Island Supported Homes Trust [2026] NZERA 54 - summary dismissal for alleged sleeping on night shift held unjustified; six months lost wages ordered and $18,750 compensation

ERA held a night shift recovery support worker was unjustifiably dismissed after video evidence of sleeping was relied on, in circumstances where night staff had a legitimate expectation they could sleep during combined breaks and management had not clearly changed that practice. Reinstatement was declined, but the...

Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.

CAMERON ROWETH v MT OUTDOORS LIMITED [2026] NZERA 50 - redundancy dismissal held unjustified due to no consultation on selection; $15,000 compensation, $5,400 lost remuneration, $1,800 notice

ERA held a fixed-term seasonal worker was unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy because the employer decided to select him for redundancy before meeting him and did not consult. Although the business case to disestablish one fixed-term role was accepted as genuine, the selection process was...

Julie Curtis v Affordable UK Caravans and Parts Limited [2026] NZERA 46 - constructive dismissal after employer refused wages and delayed return; $25,000 compensation

ERA held the employee was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed when the employer told her not to return to work until mid-January and refused to pay her contracted hours. Orders included $25,000 compensation, $8,320 reimbursement, wage and holiday pay arrears with interest, and penalties split between the employee and the Crown.

Browse topics