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
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