ClickCease

OLLIVER and Anor v TE ARAROA & DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2025] NZERA 312 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Ms Olliver and Ms Taylor (the applicants) say they were unjustifiably dismissed from their employment on 29 December 2023 and unjustifiably disadvantaged by the way the employer went about dealing with...


OLLIVER and Anor v TE ARAROA & DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED [2025] NZERA 312

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 312
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: OLLIVER and Anor v TE ARAROA & DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin
  • Hearing date: 29 and 30 January 2025 (2 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, Ms Olliver and Ms Taylor (the applicants) say they were unjustifiably dismissed from their employment on 29 December 2023 and unjustifiably disadvantaged by the way the employer went about dealing with employment concerns. After that, He did receive some emails because he provided an affidavit in November 2024 and attended the investigation meeting but with no documents other than his affidavit because of difficulties he said he had in receiving emails. Later, With no steps taken to engage with Ms Taylor and Ms Olliver about their employment, other than the community meeting, the employer has not been able to justify dismissing the applicants and it follows The Authority found their personal grievance claims for unjustified dismissal are successful. The determination records that The first relates to a the employer meeting on 5 August 2023 when Mr Rangihuna made allegations the Community Connectors had mishandled funds. The Authority notes that She says she was suspended without any consultation or process when she returned from parental leave and a discrimination claim about the way she was treated when she returned from parental leave on the agreed date. Ultimately, I was provided with a copy of minutes from a the employer meeting on 9 November 2022 where approval was granted for the kitty to increase to $5,000.00 and an application was to be made to a bank for a card. In the end, This was approved by the the employer Committee and appears to be source of concern that led to Mr Rangihuna making public allegations of misappropriation of funds at the the employer meetings and saying he would commence an investigation.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are OLLIVER and Anor (employee) and TE ARAROA & DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 29 and 30 January 2025 (2 Days).
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin.

Key events described

  • Ms Olliver and Ms Taylor (the applicants) say they were unjustifiably dismissed from their employment on 29 December 2023 and unjustifiably disadvantaged by the way the employer went about dealing with employment concerns.
  • He did receive some emails because he provided an affidavit in November 2024 and attended the investigation meeting but with no documents other than his affidavit because of difficulties he said he had in receiving emails.
  • With no steps taken to engage with Ms Taylor and Ms Olliver about their employment, other than the community meeting, the employer has not been able to justify dismissing the applicants and it follows The Authority found their personal grievance claims for unjustified dismissal are successful.
  • The first relates to a the employer meeting on 5 August 2023 when Mr Rangihuna made allegations the Community Connectors had mishandled funds.
  • She says she was suspended without any consultation or process when she returned from parental leave and a discrimination claim about the way she was treated when she returned from parental leave on the agreed date.
  • I was provided with a copy of minutes from a the employer meeting on 9 November 2022 where approval was granted for the kitty to increase to $5,000.00 and an application was to be made to a bank for a card.
  • This was approved by the the employer Committee and appears to be source of concern that led to Mr Rangihuna making public allegations of misappropriation of funds at the the employer meetings and saying he would commence an investigation.
  • In the meeting minutes dated 9 July 2023 a motion was passed requiring all three signatories to authorise all payments.
  • Denise has shared with me the financial document you had with you yesterday - Performance Report Te Araroa & Districts Progressive Association Inc for the year ended 30 June 2022 and I will take some time to review this against our records.
  • The email from the MSD contract manager contained relevant information and should have been considered by Mr Rangihuna because it was available to him before and after the 5 August 2023 meeting.
  • The investigation meeting was the first opportunity they had had to speak to Mr Rangihuna about the employer's allegations despite the very serious allegations he circulated about them.
  • Given my findings above, considering the finding of unjustified dismissal and the humiliation and loss of dignity and injury to feelings and the general range of awards in similar cases, I consider an appropriate award under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act to be in the amount of $20,000.00 for each applicant.

Decision markers

  • With no steps taken to engage with Ms Taylor and Ms Olliver about their employment, other than the community meeting, the employer has not been able to justify dismissing the applicants and it follows The Authority found their personal grievance claims for unjustified dismissal are successful.
  • The Authority was satisfied she is owed wages in the amount of $1,110.00.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $37,500.00
  • Lost wages / arrears: $35.77, $27,500.00
  • Costs: Costs reserved.

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
LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records

A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...

Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.

Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.

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).

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.

Browse topics