ClickCease

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

The short answer

The ERA found GPC's abandonment process materially unfair and held Parker-Jones was unjustifiably dismissed. She was awarded three months' lost wages and $15,000 compensation, with costs reserved.


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.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 571
  • Registry: Christchurch
  • Parties: PARKER-JONES v GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED
  • Authority member: Shane Kinley
  • Hearing date: 30 July 2025 and 1 August 2025 (by AVL) (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, 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The determination records that An unjustified disadvantage claim related to an alleged performance improvement plan was withdrawn by Ms Parker-Jones at the investigation meeting on 30 July 2025.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).
  • 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.

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.
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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics