PRASAD v WARRIOR NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 492

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, An investigation meeting was set down for 20 May 2025 in Napier. After that, The Authority was satisfied these documents were served on the employer at its registered office and address for service on 1 May 2025. Later, On 20 May 2025, I held an investigation meeting in Napier with Mr Prasad, his wife Stacey Prasad, and Mr Prasad's representative attending in person. The determination records that No reason was provided by the employer for its non-attendance at the investigation meeting on 20 May 2025 and the investigation meeting proceeded in its absence. The Authority notes that After the Authority's investigation meeting Mr Prasad provided a screenshot of his final payslip from his employment with the employer, as well as his Inland Revenue Department record of earnings for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2022. Ultimately, The email was received months after the investigation meeting and the time for filing statements and information had passed. In the end, Mr Prasad's resignation [25] On or around 28 September 2021, Mr Gemmell sent Mr Prasad a text saying that the employer required Mr Prasad to sign a new employment agreement that would give him an 11 percent increase in his wages, but remove his entitlements to sick leave and annual leave.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are PRASAD (employee) and WARRIOR NZ LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 20 May 2025.
• Authority member: Natasha Szeto.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• On 5 October 2024, Mrs Gemmell sent an email to the Authority on behalf of Mr Gemmell and the employer.
• On 4 November 2024, the employer sent a further email stating again the company has not traded for some years and is closed.
• An investigation meeting was set down for 20 May 2025 in Napier.
• The Authority was satisfied these documents were served on the employer at its registered office and address for service on 1 May 2025.
• On 20 May 2025, I held an investigation meeting in Napier with Mr Prasad, his wife Stacey Prasad, and Mr Prasad's representative attending in person.
• No reason was provided by the employer for its non-attendance at the investigation meeting on 20 May 2025 and the investigation meeting proceeded in its absence.
• After the Authority's investigation meeting Mr Prasad provided a screenshot of his final payslip from his employment with the employer, as well as his Inland Revenue Department record of earnings for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2022.
• The email was received months after the investigation meeting and the time for filing statements and information had passed.
• the employer sent an email to the Authority on 7 August 2025 in response to a question about Mr Prasad's costs.
• Mr Prasad's resignation [25] On or around 28 September 2021, Mr Gemmell sent Mr Prasad a text saying that the employer required Mr Prasad to sign a new employment agreement that would give him an 11 percent increase in his wages, but remove his entitlements to sick leave and annual leave.
• On 28 October 2021 Mr Prasad raised a personal grievance with the employer by sending a letter setting out the reasons he believed he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged and constructively dismissed.
• On 9 September 2024 Mr Prasad lodged a statement of problem with the Authority, which was within the three year period to commence an action in the Authority in relation to a personal grievance.1 Was Mr Prasad unjustifiably dismissed?
• In some circumstances a resignation may amount to a dismissal.
• Based on the evidence before the Authority, The Authority found Mr Prasad has established that the employer's actions caused him to resign, the actions were breaches of the employer's duties to him and its actions were of sufficient seriousness to make it reasonably foreseeable that Mr Prasad would resign, for the following reasons.
• The Authority found Mr Prasad was unjustifiably constructively dismissed.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• The Authority was satisfied these documents were served on the employer at its registered office and address for service on 1 May 2025.
• The Authority concluded the employer's actions above also amount to breaches of the duty of good faith7 because the employer was not active and constructive in maintaining a productive employment relationship.
• Conclusion [41] Based on the evidence before the Authority, The Authority found the employer breached its employment obligations under the Act and its duty of good faith.
• The Authority found Mr Prasad was unjustifiably constructively dismissed.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $15,000.00

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.
• 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.