PETERSEN v EDGECUMBE SUPERMARKET LIMITED [2025] NZERA 473

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, the employer says it did not dismiss Mrs Petersen and her employment was ending on 31 July 2024 as she was going overseas. After that, The Authority was satisfied notice of the case management conference was delivered to the employer's registered address and notice of the investigation meeting was served on Mr Gorrie, as was a copy of Mrs Petersen's evidence and an administrative email about arrangements for the investigation meeting. Later, As a result of that incident, Mr Gorrie says he suspended Mrs Petersen until the end of her shift, when her employment was due to end in any event. The determination records that Where the evidence differs is Mrs Petersen says she was dismissed and trespassed, whereas Mr Gorrie says she was hysterical and he suspended her for not following a lawful instruction, and did not in fact trespass her although he admitted threatening to do so. The Authority notes that The grievance alleged Mr Gorrie had dismissed Mrs Petersen on the basis she refused to clean the toilets. Ultimately, There were challenges in getting Mr Gorrie to engage with Mrs Petersen's former advocate and mediation was unable to be arranged, although the advocate advised he had been told by Mr Gorrie that he did not dismiss Mrs Petersen, she had abandoned her employment when she did not return from leave. In the end, Mrs Petersen's signed employment agreement required two weeks' notice in writing of resignation or dismissal for cause.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are PETERSEN (employee) and EDGECUMBE SUPERMARKET LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 30 May 2025.
• Authority member: Shane Kinley.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• the employer says it did not dismiss Mrs Petersen and her employment was ending on 31 July 2024 as she was going overseas.
• The Authority's investigation [3] As part of the Authority's investigation process a case management conference was held on 27 February 2025 with Mrs Petersen's representative, who subsequently passed away.
• He also said Mrs Petersen did not have leave available to her prior to departing on an overseas holiday shortly after 31 July 2024, so her employment was due to end on that date, notwithstanding the incident which occurred on that date.
• As a result of that incident, Mr Gorrie says he suspended Mrs Petersen until the end of her shift, when her employment was due to end in any event.
• Where the evidence differs is Mrs Petersen says she was dismissed and trespassed, whereas Mr Gorrie says she was hysterical and he suspended her for not following a lawful instruction, and did not in fact trespass her although he admitted threatening to do so.
• The grievance alleged Mr Gorrie had dismissed Mrs Petersen on the basis she refused to clean the toilets.
• There were challenges in getting Mr Gorrie to engage with Mrs Petersen's former advocate and mediation was unable to be arranged, although the advocate advised he had been told by Mr Gorrie that he did not dismiss Mrs Petersen, she had abandoned her employment when she did not return from leave.
• Mrs Petersen's signed employment agreement required two weeks' notice in writing of resignation or dismissal for cause.
• In the absence of Mrs Petersen having resigned prior to going on leave, which there was no evidence of, I consider Mr Gorrie paying out her leave is more consistent with him having dismissed her.
• Mr Gorrie said at the investigation meeting he had not given Mrs Petersen notice of dismissal for cause and said he (quoted wording omitted).
• For completeness, while Mr Gorrie said he suspended Mrs Petersen for the remainder of her final shift, there is no contractual power to suspend and no process appeared to be followed in relation to a proposal to suspend, properly considered under s 103A of the Act.
• Mrs Petersen was unjustifiably dismissed [42] For the reasons above, The Authority found the employer dismissed Mrs Petersen in a substantively and procedurally unjustified manner.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• The Authority found the evidence supports Mrs Petersen being employed on a permanent part- time basis by the employer.
• Mrs Petersen was unjustifiably dismissed [42] For the reasons above, The Authority found the employer dismissed Mrs Petersen in a substantively and procedurally unjustified manner.
• The Authority was satisfied the requirements of s 132 of the Act are met in order to accept Mrs Petersen's evidence of hours worked.
• The Authority found Mrs Petersen contributed in a minor way to the situation giving rise to her grievance due to her refusal to clean the toilets, which I considered was arguably a reasonable and lawful instruction, as well as her failure to confirm arrangements for her holiday.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $9,000
• Lost wages / arrears: $1,600.80

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.