QNZ v RNV [2025] NZERA 520
This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.
At a glance
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 520
- Registry: Auckland
- Parties: QNZ v RNV
- Main issues: Unjustified dismissal, Constructive dismissal, Unjustified disadvantage, Holiday pay, Penalties, Costs, Harassment, Good faith
- Outcome: Unjustified dismissal found (employee succeeded).
Story in plain English
The dismissal/end date noted is 9 June 2022.
According to the determination, On 13 May 2025, the day following the investigation meeting, these interim orders were recorded in writing. After that, RNV said QNZ was not dismissed as she left her employment around the time she had earlier indicated she would but without communicating with it, so RNV took QNV to have resigned without giving notice. Later, Written submissions were timetabled at the end of the investigation meeting and were received from the applicant on 21 May 2025 and from the employer on 29 May 2025. Subsequently, The applicant was afforded the opportunity to comment on the employer's submissions, and did so by email on 4 June 2025. In the later stages, On 26 May 2022 AA had another opportunity to engage with the seriousness of what was said to have occurred when CC gave as the reason for her resignation that she was uncomfortable with his not dealing with what she described as a (quoted wording omitted). Ultimately, When asked why this was so, she said she had understood from BB's report back from her conversations with AA an DD that the company's attitude was dismissive of her concerns. In the end, Sometime after this AA was contacted by the Police regarding QNZ's complaint about XX inappropriately touching her on 26 April 2022.
Key case markers
- This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
- The parties are QNZ (employee) and RNV (employer).
- End/dismissal date noted: 9 June 2022.
Key events described
- On 13 May 2025, the day following the investigation meeting, these interim orders were recorded in writing.
- RNV said QNZ was not dismissed as she left her employment around the time she had earlier indicated she would but without communicating with it, so RNV took QNV to have resigned without giving notice.
- Written submissions were timetabled at the end of the investigation meeting and were received from the applicant on 21 May 2025 and from the employer on 29 May 2025.
- The applicant was afforded the opportunity to comment on the employer's submissions, and did so by email on 4 June 2025.
- On 26 May 2022 AA had another opportunity to engage with the seriousness of what was said to have occurred when CC gave as the reason for her resignation that she was uncomfortable with his not dealing with what she described as a (quoted wording omitted).
- When asked why this was so, she said she had understood from BB's report back from her conversations with AA an DD that the company's attitude was dismissive of her concerns.
- Sometime after this AA was contacted by the Police regarding QNZ's complaint about XX inappropriately touching her on 26 April 2022.
- RNV said that it had not received the letter dated 29 August 2022 from QNV's representative and that even if it had, the letter arrived outside of the time limit because QNV's employment had ended on 29 May 2022.
- On balance, it is likely he is referring to the 29 August 2022 email by which QNZ's representative raised the personal grievance on her behalf.
- The Authority therefore finds that the 29 August 2022 letter was received by AA on behalf of RNV.
Decision markers
- QNZ has established personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage in her employment and unjustified constructive dismissal.
- In these circumstances it would be artificial to make separate awards of distress compensation for each personal grievance she has established.
Money and remedy references
- Compensation: $20,000, $1,280
- Other payments: $1,280
Practical takeaways
- Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
- Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and 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.
