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
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