PARKER-JONES v GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED [2025] NZERA 571

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, Non-publication orders [3] Following the investigation meeting by AVL on 1 August 2025, the Authority Officer at my direction, invited the representatives to make submissions on whether non-publication orders were appropriate under cl 10(1) of sch 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). After that, The Authority was satisfied based on the nature of medical information disclosed during the investigation process and referred to in evidence, that the non-publication orders sought by Ms Parker-Jones are appropriate. Later, Following the investigation meeting by AVL on 1 August 2025, the Authority Officer at my direction, advised the representatives of points I considered it would be helpful for submissions to address. The determination records that An unjustified disadvantage claim related to an alleged performance improvement plan was withdrawn by Ms Parker-Jones at the investigation meeting on 30 July 2025. The Authority notes that Mr Marriott's investigation involved him interviewing seven of Ms Parker- Jones' co-workers and Mrs Taylor between 2 and 9 August 2024, including the five co- workers whom Ms Parker-Jones had made allegations about. Ultimately, Mr Marriott concluded his investigation on 9 August 2024 and advised Ms Parker-Jones' former representative by letter on that date, with copies of the statements from interviewed co-workers and Mrs Taylor appended. In the end, Mr Marriott raised in his letter the extent of Ms Parker-Jones' absences over the previous 12 months and her failure during the investigation period to attend (quoted wording omitted).

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are PARKER-JONES (employee) and GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 30 July 2025 and 1 August 2025 (by AVL) (2 days).
• Authority member: Shane Kinley.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Non-publication orders [3] Following the investigation meeting by AVL on 1 August 2025, the Authority Officer at my direction, invited the representatives to make submissions on whether non-publication orders were appropriate under cl 10(1) of sch 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act).
• The Authority was satisfied based on the nature of medical information disclosed during the investigation process and referred to in evidence, that the non-publication orders sought by Ms Parker-Jones are appropriate.
• Following the investigation meeting by AVL on 1 August 2025, the Authority Officer at my direction, advised the representatives of points I considered it would be helpful for submissions to address.
• An unjustified disadvantage claim related to an alleged performance improvement plan was withdrawn by Ms Parker-Jones at the investigation meeting on 30 July 2025.
• Mr Marriott's investigation involved him interviewing seven of Ms Parker- Jones' co-workers and Mrs Taylor between 2 and 9 August 2024, including the five co- workers whom Ms Parker-Jones had made allegations about.
• Mr Marriott concluded his investigation on 9 August 2024 and advised Ms Parker-Jones' former representative by letter on that date, with copies of the statements from interviewed co-workers and Mrs Taylor appended.
• Mr Marriott raised in his letter the extent of Ms Parker-Jones' absences over the previous 12 months and her failure during the investigation period to attend (quoted wording omitted).
• In response to Mr Marriott's letter, on 13 August 2024 Ms Parker-Jones' former representative advised that mediation had been sought, and that she wished to use annual leave in the meantime.
• When questioned by me at the investigation meeting, Mr Marriott said he made recommendations by sending his outcome letter of 9 August 2024 to the senior managers including Ms Sixton before it was sent to Ms Parker-Jones' former representative.
• Ms Sixton acknowledged being a decision-maker in relation to Ms Parker- Jones' complaints and said she had, with the other senior managers, adopted Mr Marriott's findings, as communicated in the letter of 9 August 2024.
• Timeline associated with Ms Parker-Jones' dismissal [69] Ms Parker-Jones' dismissal followed the exchange of correspondence between her former representative and Mr Marriot between 1 August and 2 September 2024, as outlined in paragraphs [30] and [36] to [38] above.
• Mr Marriott extended the timeframe for a response on behalf of Ms Parker- Jones until 30 August 2024, before eventually advising her employment had been terminated on 2 September 2024.
• GPC says responses on behalf of Ms Parker-Jones on 26 August 2024 and then on 2 September 2024, after employment had been terminated, did not sufficiently engage with GPC's proposal to terminate her employment or satisfactorily explain her absences.
• In these circumstances, The Authority found GPC's actions therefore amounted to an unjustified dismissal.
• Outcome [83] For the reasons set out above, The Authority found Ms Parker-Jones was unjustifiably dismissed when GPC terminated her employment on the basis it considered she had abandoned her employment without its consent and without good reason.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• The Authority was satisfied based on the nature of medical information disclosed during the investigation process and referred to in evidence, that the non-publication orders sought by Ms Parker-Jones are appropriate.
• The Authority was satisfied this negatively impacted on her employment with GPC and do not consider the short-comings in GPC's process to have been minor and or to have not resulted in Ms Parker-Jones being treated unfairly, in terms of s 103A(5) of the Act.
• In these circumstances, The Authority found GPC's actions therefore amounted to an unjustified dismissal.
• Outcome [83] For the reasons set out above, The Authority found Ms Parker-Jones was unjustifiably dismissed when GPC terminated her employment on the basis it considered she had abandoned her employment without its consent and without good reason.

Orders and payments mentioned

• 3 months lost wages
• Compensation: $15,000
• 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

• 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.