PAETZ v SOLLY'S FREIGHT (1978) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 319

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

Story in plain English

The Authority found a constructive dismissal was established.

In summary, In this case Mr Paetz was not dismissed by Solly's, he resigned. After that, Mr Paetz says that his resignation amounts to a dismissal because he resigned in response to breaches of duty by Solly's, this being a constructive dismissal. Later, What is clear from the evidence is that Mr Solly engaged with Mr Paetz over his concerns in the meeting on 11 November 2023 and then Solly's provided a written response to the personal grievances raised on 4 December 2023, in a letter of 8 December 2023.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are PAETZ (employee) and SOLLY'S FREIGHT (1978) LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 10 and 11 October 2024 (2 Days).
• Authority member: Peter van Keulen.

Key events described

• In this case Mr Paetz was not dismissed by Solly's, he resigned.
• Mr Paetz says that his resignation amounts to a dismissal because he resigned in response to breaches of duty by Solly's, this being a constructive dismissal.
• What is clear from the evidence is that Mr Solly engaged with Mr Paetz over his concerns in the meeting on 11 November 2023 and then Solly's provided a written response to the personal grievances raised on 4 December 2023, in a letter of 8 December 2023.

Decision markers

• Turning to the unjustifiable action causing disadvantage grievances, The Authority found that Solly's actions did cause a disadvantage to Mr Paetz's employment.
• Conclusion on personal grievances [76] Mr Paetz has established personal grievances for unjustified action causing disadvantage in connection with Solly's requiring him to work more than 40 hours per week and Solly's failing to review his pay as required in the IEA. 4 Auckland Shop Employees Union v.
• Mr Paetz has established personal grievances of unjustified dismissal causing disadvantage for both sets of actions.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $14,000, $2,207.70
• 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

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Trial-period disputes often come down to strict compliance with s 67B and the written agreement.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.