QN v FT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 99

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

Story in plain English

This decision deals with non-publication orders in an employment relationship problem.

In summary, Employment Relationship Problem [12] QN was employed by FT Ltd as a branch manager from June 2017 until being summarily dismissed on 4 March 2024. After that, Prior to the dismissal QN was issued a (quoted wording omitted) covering issues unrelated to the dismissal and they are challenging the justifiability of this letter as a separate disadvantage personal grievance. Later, FT Ltd contend QN's dismissal was a fair and reasonable decision after they had undertaken an investigation into an allegation that QN had failed to adequately disclose the existence of a conflict-of-interest situation involving the engagement of a close family member's company. The determination records that At the end of the investigation meetings on 17 December 2024, counsel were provided an opportunity to speak to their written submissions. The Authority notes that Performance concerns - letter of expectations [21] QN reported to a regional manager from September 2022 who was located in the North Island. Ultimately, The letter then drew attention to examples of serious misconduct in QN's employment agreement and a company disciplinary and dismissal policy relating to a conflict-of-interest activity and failure to disclose. In the end, By letter of 15 December 2024, FT Ltd's counsel, advised that they rejected the personal grievance claiming the action of setting up a meeting to discuss performance concerns was not untoward and had not been escalated to a performance plan or formal warning.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are QN (employee) and FT LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: .
• Authority member: .

Key events described

• Employment Relationship Problem [12] QN was employed by FT Ltd as a branch manager from June 2017 until being summarily dismissed on 4 March 2024.
• Prior to the dismissal QN was issued a (quoted wording omitted) covering issues unrelated to the dismissal and they are challenging the justifiability of this letter as a separate disadvantage personal grievance.
• FT Ltd contend QN's dismissal was a fair and reasonable decision after they had undertaken an investigation into an allegation that QN had failed to adequately disclose the existence of a conflict-of-interest situation involving the engagement of a close family member's company.
• At the end of the investigation meetings on 17 December 2024, counsel were provided an opportunity to speak to their written submissions.
• Performance concerns - letter of expectations [21] QN reported to a regional manager from September 2022 who was located in the North Island.
• The letter then drew attention to examples of serious misconduct in QN's employment agreement and a company disciplinary and dismissal policy relating to a conflict-of-interest activity and failure to disclose.
• By letter of 15 December 2024, FT Ltd's counsel, advised that they rejected the personal grievance claiming the action of setting up a meeting to discuss performance concerns was not untoward and had not been escalated to a performance plan or formal warning.
• QN's response through counsel, also raised a personal grievance claiming the company had ignored and misrepresented all responses of QN during the 2 February meeting and suggested QN had been disadvantaged by the process leading to the dismissal proposal and, that the sanction proposed was disproportionate.
• The grievance letter also posited that there was a conflation of the disciplinary investigation and sanction without an opportunity to discuss alternatives to dismissal.
• By letter of 4 March 2024, FT Ltd's national operations manager confirmed their decision to dismiss QN based on their findings outlined in the 16 February letter.
• I could criticise the national operations manager for not suggesting QN meet with them in their 16 February letter setting out the proposal to dismiss, (the letter only refereed to a written submission) but QN who was represented by experienced counsel, did not seek to meet.
• Finding [132] The Authority found the decision to summarily dismiss QN was one that a fair and reasonable employer could have reached in all the prevailing circumstances.

Decision markers

• The Authority found overall that subject to my assessment of procedural factors, that FT Ltd acted in a fair and reasonable manner in concluding QN had engaged in serious misconduct.
• Finding [132] The Authority found the decision to summarily dismiss QN was one that a fair and reasonable employer could have reached in all the prevailing circumstances.

Orders and payments mentioned

• 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

• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• 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.