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
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