ClickCease

Owaka Motors dismissed Mr Murray after he lost the driver licence required for his work. He also alleged mental-health discrimination and failure to provide an employment agreement, while the ERA examined whether the employer adequately investigated alternatives and heard from him before dismissal.

The short answer

The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because the small employer still failed to investigate sufficiently or give Murray a reasonable opportunity to respond before deciding. He was awarded $8,698 lost remuneration and $12,000 compensation; costs were awarded.


MURRAY v OWAKA MOTORS (2008) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 207

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 207
  • Registry: Christchurch
  • Parties: MURRAY v OWAKA MOTORS (2008) LIMITED
  • Authority member: Lucia Vincent
  • Hearing date: 27 August 2024
  • Determination date: 14 April 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 Murray alleges Owaka Motors (2008) Limited (the employer) unjustifiably dismissed him for losing his licence, unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of mental health, and failed to provide him with an individual employment agreement. After that, The Authority held an investigation meeting in Dunedin on 27 August 2024. Later, It is common ground that when the parties met on 12 December 2022, Mr Murray was dismissed.3 Mr Moore says he explained to Mr Murray that this was because he had lost his licence and could no longer do the role. The determination records that Given the importance of the licence issue to Mr Moore and the employer, The Authority found it more plausible that Mr Moore did explain to Mr Murray he was being dismissed because he had lost his licence. The Authority notes that Although the employer is a small business with fewer resources than a larger business, The Authority found there was still an insufficient investigation into the employer's concerns before dismissing Mr Murray. Ultimately, The Authority found the employer did not adequately raise its concerns with Mr Murray prior to the meeting on 12 December 2022, nor provide a reasonable opportunity for Mr Murray to respond to the concerns and have his views considered, before a decision was made. In the end, Discrimination [28] Mr Murray alleges Mr Moore dismissed him for mental health issues.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
  • The parties are MURRAY (employee) and OWAKA MOTORS (2008) LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 27 August 2024.
  • Authority member: Lucia Vincent.

Key events described

  • Mr Murray alleges Owaka Motors (2008) Limited (the employer) unjustifiably dismissed him for losing his licence, unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of mental health, and failed to provide him with an individual employment agreement.
  • The Authority held an investigation meeting in Dunedin on 27 August 2024.
  • It is common ground that when the parties met on 12 December 2022, Mr Murray was dismissed.3 Mr Moore says he explained to Mr Murray that this was because he had lost his licence and could no longer do the role.
  • Discrimination [28] Mr Murray alleges Mr Moore dismissed him for mental health issues.
  • Mr Murray has sought compensation of $25,000 for his unjustified dismissal and wages lost because of his grievance.

Decision markers

  • Given the importance of the licence issue to Mr Moore and the employer, The Authority found it more plausible that Mr Moore did explain to Mr Murray he was being dismissed because he had lost his licence.
  • Although the employer is a small business with fewer resources than a larger business, The Authority found there was still an insufficient investigation into the employer's concerns before dismissing Mr Murray.
  • The Authority found the employer did not adequately raise its concerns with Mr Murray prior to the meeting on 12 December 2022, nor provide a reasonable opportunity for Mr Murray to respond to the concerns and have his views considered, before a decision was made.
  • The Authority found it likely Mr Moore said as much during the meeting on 12 December 2022 and did not mention mental health concerns in relation to the dismissal because he did not rely on any such concerns when dismissing Mr Murray.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $12,000
  • Lost remuneration: $8,698
  • Costs: Costs awarded.

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

  • 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
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics