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
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

Ashleigh Sanders v Hamilton City Council [2026] NZERA 517 - senior zoo manager's insidious conduct caused unjustified disadvantage

The ERA found Hamilton City Council liable for unjustified disadvantage caused by the conduct of Hamilton Zoo's former senior manager towards zookeeper Ashleigh Sanders. The conduct involved intrusive personal contact, out-of-hours messages, requests for information about colleagues, favouritism and career-related pressure, and came close to sexual harassment. Constructive dismissal was not established because the manager had left 14 months before the resignation and causation was not proved. The Council was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation.

KCY v XSH [2026] NZERA 516 - bullying complaint failures, forced transfer and dismissal over promotional gifts

In an anonymised retail case, the ERA found that XSH unjustifiably disadvantaged KCY by failing to follow up her bullying complaint, placing her on paid special leave without proper consultation, and directing an immediate store transfer as a fait accompli. Her summary dismissal over expired promotional gifts and a back-office passcode was also unjustified because relevant evidence of common store practice and staff deception was not properly investigated. Compensation totalled $40,000 after contribution reductions, with further lost-remuneration and annual-leave orders.

Browse topics