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
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).

Andrea Lawson v Luxottica Retail New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 52 - investigation process disadvantages upheld; $15,000 compensation and $3,000 good faith penalty

The ERA rejected the employee's constructive dismissal claim but upheld unjustified disadvantage findings because the employer ran a flawed, slow investigation and left the employee in the dark about process and return-to-work steps. Orders included $15,000 compensation, a $3,000 penalty for...

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...

Browse topics