ClickCease

NAIR v MODERN AUTO REPAIR CENTRE LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 28 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. However, Mr Sharma has since resiled from that position and says that no monies are owed and that Mr Nair was not dismissed but resigned after a heated argument with his employer.


NAIR v MODERN AUTO REPAIR CENTRE LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 28

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 28
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: NAIR v MODERN AUTO REPAIR CENTRE LIMITED and Anor
  • Authority member: Peter Fuiava
  • Hearing date: 24 January, 14 March, 13 August and 21 October 2024 (and by audio-visual link) (4 Days)
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, However, Mr Sharma has since resiled from that position and says that no monies are owed and that Mr Nair was not dismissed but resigned after a heated argument with his employer. After that, Not without reluctance, the adjournment was granted and the investigation meeting was rescheduled to 24 January 2024. Later, The investigation meeting proceeded on 14 March 2024 but was adjourned part heard to conclude Mr Sharma's evidence. The determination records that On 28 July 2022, his wife Ragni emailed Mr Sharma that there was something wrong with the company's pay records in that Mr Nair's wages for the week ending 17 July 2022 of $956.72 was paid late on 27 July. The Authority notes that On 22 September 2022, Mr Nair's representative, Mr Morgan, raised a personal grievance with Mr Sharma for wage arrears, loss of income, unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. Ultimately, On the contrary, an email from him to Mr Sharma (see [16] above) makes clear that he was asked to leave work (quoted wording omitted) which on a plain reading supports a dismissal rather than a resignation. In the end, However, by not responding to Mr Nair's emails, Mr Sharma merely confirmed matters in Mr Nair's mind that he had been summarily dismissed.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are NAIR (employee) and MODERN AUTO REPAIR CENTRE LIMITED and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 24 January, 14 March, 13 August and 21 October 2024 (and by audio-visual link) (4 Days).
  • Authority member: Peter Fuiava.

Key events described

  • However, Mr Sharma has since resiled from that position and says that no monies are owed and that Mr Nair was not dismissed but resigned after a heated argument with his employer.
  • Not without reluctance, the adjournment was granted and the investigation meeting was rescheduled to 24 January 2024.
  • The investigation meeting proceeded on 14 March 2024 but was adjourned part heard to conclude Mr Sharma's evidence.
  • On 28 July 2022, his wife Ragni emailed Mr Sharma that there was something wrong with the company's pay records in that Mr Nair's wages for the week ending 17 July 2022 of $956.72 was paid late on 27 July.
  • On 22 September 2022, Mr Nair's representative, Mr Morgan, raised a personal grievance with Mr Sharma for wage arrears, loss of income, unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.
  • On the contrary, an email from him to Mr Sharma (see [16] above) makes clear that he was asked to leave work (quoted wording omitted) which on a plain reading supports a dismissal rather than a resignation.
  • However, by not responding to Mr Nair's emails, Mr Sharma merely confirmed matters in Mr Nair's mind that he had been summarily dismissed.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $13,500
  • Costs: Costs considered.
  • Other payments: $14,289.93

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

  • Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
  • 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 articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Unjustified Disadvantage
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.

Browse topics