PUTAANGA v MOVE FREIGHT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 425

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 (partly successful).

In summary, On 12 May 2022 MOVe Freight terminated Mr Putaanga's employment. After that, In response to these events Mr Putaanga raised two personal grievances: (a) An unjustified action causing disadvantage arising out of the workplace accident and allegations that MOVe Freight did not adequately protect him. (b) An unjustifiable dismissal. Later, I investigated Mr Putaanga's employment relationship problem by receiving written evidence and documents, holding an investigation meeting in Christchurch on 27 March 2025 and assessing the written submissions of the parties. The determination records that Mr Putaanga was dismissed by MOVe Freight on 12 May 2022 at the culmination of a process undertaken by MOVe Freight into Mr Putaanga's fitness for work. The Authority notes that So, on 30 March 2022, MOVe Freight sent Mr Putaanga a letter inviting him to attend a meeting about when he might be able to return to full time work. Ultimately, In this meeting MOVe Freight presented its view on Mr Putaanga's ability to return to work as set out in the letter of 4 May 2022. In the end, In the end, the process became hurried and the actual engagement with Mr Putaanga amounted to one meeting lasting 38 minutes, in which it appeared that MOVe Freight had already made up its mind and all it was looking to do was complete the meeting to be able to confirm Mr Putaanga's dismissal.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are PUTAANGA (employee) and MOVE FREIGHT LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 27 March 2025.
• Authority member: Peter van Keulen.

Key events described

• On 12 May 2022 MOVe Freight terminated Mr Putaanga's employment.
• In response to these events Mr Putaanga raised two personal grievances: (a) An unjustified action causing disadvantage arising out of the workplace accident and allegations that MOVe Freight did not adequately protect him. (b) An unjustifiable dismissal.
• I investigated Mr Putaanga's employment relationship problem by receiving written evidence and documents, holding an investigation meeting in Christchurch on 27 March 2025 and assessing the written submissions of the parties.
• Mr Putaanga was dismissed by MOVe Freight on 12 May 2022 at the culmination of a process undertaken by MOVe Freight into Mr Putaanga's fitness for work.
• So, on 30 March 2022, MOVe Freight sent Mr Putaanga a letter inviting him to attend a meeting about when he might be able to return to full time work.
• In this meeting MOVe Freight presented its view on Mr Putaanga's ability to return to work as set out in the letter of 4 May 2022.
• In the end, the process became hurried and the actual engagement with Mr Putaanga amounted to one meeting lasting 38 minutes, in which it appeared that MOVe Freight had already made up its mind and all it was looking to do was complete the meeting to be able to confirm Mr Putaanga's dismissal.
• In many respects the meeting on 12 May 2022 appeared nothing more than a perfunctory step that MOVe Freight needed to take and its decision to dismiss Mr Putaanga had already been made.
• I come to this conclusion even though after Mr Putaanga's dismissal the ACC medical certificates provided up until the investigation meeting show that he was not ever cleared to work more than three days per week driving.
• On this point, The Authority concluded that Mr Putaanga cannot be awarded lost remuneration for the unjustified action of failing to provide a safe workplace or the unjustified dismissal.
• In terms of his dismissal Mr Putaanga expressed disappointment and feeling let down particularly as he had complied with his medical advice and ACC proposals for his return to work.
• Based on this I assess the quantum of compensation for Mr Putaanga to be $9,000 for the unjustified disadvantage grievance and $12,000 for the unjustified dismissal.

Decision markers

• Mr Putaanga has established a personal grievance for unjustified action causing disadvantage arising out of the workplace accident.
• The Authority was satisfied that MOVe Freight acted as a fair and reasonable employer could in giving Mr Putaanga the time it did to recover and provide a prognosis for a possible return to full-time work (before it commenced the process).
• On this point, The Authority concluded that Mr Putaanga cannot be awarded lost remuneration for the unjustified action of failing to provide a safe workplace or the unjustified dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $21,000
• Costs: Costs awarded.

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

• 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.