ClickCease

ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 44 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. On 29 June 2020, Mr Ormsby says his employment was terminated via Messenger without notice because Mr Ferey could no longer afford to pay wages.


ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 44

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 44
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin
  • Hearing date: 13 December 2024
  • 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, On 29 June 2020, Mr Ormsby says his employment was terminated via Messenger without notice because Mr Ferey could no longer afford to pay wages. After that, The Authority found Mr Ormsby was dismissed when Mr Ferey sent the messages saying he could not afford to continue to pay him because that message amounts to a clear termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. Later, I consider it appropriate to make a global award of $20,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act for both the unjustified disadvantage and dismissal.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are ORMSBY (employee) and BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 13 December 2024.
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin.

Key events described

  • On 29 June 2020, Mr Ormsby says his employment was terminated via Messenger without notice because Mr Ferey could no longer afford to pay wages.
  • The Authority found Mr Ormsby was dismissed when Mr Ferey sent the messages saying he could not afford to continue to pay him because that message amounts to a clear termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
  • I consider it appropriate to make a global award of $20,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act for both the unjustified disadvantage and dismissal.

Decision markers

  • The Authority found Mr Ormsby was dismissed when Mr Ferey sent the messages saying he could not afford to continue to pay him because that message amounts to a clear termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
  • The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified and awarded compensation and lost wages.
  • The Authority also found an unjustified disadvantage and made a global compensation award covering both claims.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $20,000.00 (global award for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings)
  • Lost wages: $7,000.00 gross
  • Wage and holiday arrears: $4,951.60 plus interest
  • KiwiSaver: Unpaid employer contributions ordered to be paid to the fund

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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Brent Colyer v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited [2026] NZERA 444 - flawed disciplinary process, written warning and unjustified disadvantage

Brent Colyer had worked for New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited as an electrician for almost 20 years. After he inspected a gantry crane without first isolating a related 35-tonne crane, NZAS investigated and issued a written warning. The ERA found the disciplinary process was unjustified and breached good faith. NZAS had blurred an informal incident investigation into a disciplinary investigation, failed to collect basic statements, allowed an uninvestigated concern about Mr Colyer's attitude toward a colleague to become central, failed to provide the correct investigation report in advance, and then accidentally gave him a draft report containing an outcomes section. Constructive dismissal failed, but unjustified disadvantage succeeded. NZAS was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Browse topics