Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379

This Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination concerns Rachel Hankins, an accountant employed by Huhtamaki Henderson Limited (HHL) on a fixed-term maternity-cover agreement. The Authority found the fixed term itself was valid: maternity leave cover was a genuine reason, and the agreement clearly recorded both the end date and the reason for the employment ending then. However, HHL acted as though Ms Hankins' employment had finished before that agreed date. It required the return of company property, represented that her engagement had concluded, removed her IT access, and confirmed that she was not required to work despite the fixed term continuing until 15 August 2025. The ERA found that combination amounted to an unjustified early dismissal and also caused unjustified disadvantage. HHL was ordered to pay $3,500 compensation for the IT-access disadvantage, $8,000 compensation for unjustified dismissal, and the equivalent of four weeks' salary. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

The short point

Ms Hankins did not succeed in challenging the validity of the fixed term itself. The reason for the agreement was clear: HHL needed maternity-cover support for its finance team. That was a genuine reason based on reasonable grounds, and the agreement expressly told Ms Hankins the date on which employment would end and why.

Her success came from what HHL did before that date. On 6 August 2025, HHL sent an email headed End of fixed term contract - confirmation, required company property to be returned by 8 August, referred to the conclusion of her engagement, and wished her well for the future. HHL then removed her access to the IT system on 12 August. Objectively, the Authority found those acts amounted to a dismissal before the 15 August contractual end date.

HHL paid Ms Hankins through to 15 August, but that did not resolve the problem. Her agreement required one month's notice or payment in lieu if HHL terminated her employment before the expiry of the fixed term. The Authority therefore awarded four weeks' salary, together with separate compensation for both the early dismissal and the loss of IT access.

Background: accountant employed for maternity cover

Ms Hankins began employment with HHL on 6 August 2024 as an accountant. Her individual employment agreement was fixed term and due to end on 15 August 2025. The stated reason for the fixed term was to support HHL's finance team while a permanent employee was absent on maternity leave.

Ms Hankins argued that the fixed-term arrangement was not genuine because the work she was asked to do was broader than the cost-accounting work undertaken by the employee she was covering. The Authority accepted that her role was diverse and broader in nature. But that did not decide the section 66 issue. The relevant question was whether HHL genuinely had a reasonable basis for offering fixed-term employment.

The fixed-term agreement complied with section 66

Section 66 permits a fixed-term agreement only where the employer has genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds for specifying how employment will end, and where the employee is advised when or how employment will end and the reasons for that arrangement.

The Authority found both requirements were met. A 12-month maternity-cover arrangement was a genuine reason for a fixed term. HHL had also made the position and its ending clear: the agreement specified an end date of 15 August 2025 and recorded that the end date was linked to the maternity-cover absence.

The 6 August email and early end to the employment relationship

On 30 July 2025, HHL invited Ms Hankins to a meeting to reflect on the year as her fixed term approached its scheduled end. Ms Hankins suggested a meeting after the end of the month. On 6 August, HHL sent a further email stating that her fixed-term contract was coming to an end on 15 August and referring to the conclusion of her engagement.

The email also said that no handover was required, directed Ms Hankins to return all company property to the Otahuhu office by midday on 8 August, said final pay through 15 August would be processed by 15 August, and thanked her for her contributions. HHL's evidence was that the returning permanent employee was back in the role, there was no need for both employees to carry out the work, and Ms Hankins was not attending the workplace.

On 12 August, Ms Hankins was locked out of the IT system. HHL later confirmed she was not required to do any work but would be paid up to and including 15 August. Ms Hankins maintained that no variation of the end date had been discussed or agreed.

Why the ERA found there had been a dismissal

The Authority applied the objective dismissal test: whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would consider the employment had been terminated. It found the combination of HHL's communications and actions met that test.

• The email subject line was End of fixed term contract - confirmation.
• The email described the conclusion of Ms Hankins' engagement and asked for all company property to be returned by 8 August.
• HHL wished her well for the future, despite the agreed fixed term running to 15 August.
• Her IT access was removed on 12 August.
• The parties then corresponded about final pay rather than ongoing work for the remaining fixed-term period.

HHL's agreement included a clause requiring one month's notice or payment in lieu if it decided to terminate employment before expiry of the fixed term. The Authority found that HHL had, in substance, issued notice on 6 August and ended the employment relationship before the agreed end date. There was no legal basis for doing so. The dismissal was therefore unjustified.

IT access: a separate unjustified disadvantage

HHL removed Ms Hankins' IT-system access before the fixed term had ended. The Authority found that Ms Hankins had a right to continue working until the expiry of the term and could not perform her duties without access to the relevant system.

There was no legal basis for HHL to remove that access early. The Authority therefore found a separate personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage, in addition to the unjustified dismissal.

The laptop-return claim did not crystallise

HHL required Ms Hankins to return her company laptop by 8 August. She did not comply because she said the device held information relevant to personal grievance claims she was advancing.

The Authority accepted that an employee who is entitled to raise a personal grievance may need access to relevant information held on a work device. But Ms Hankins had retained the laptop. Since the requested return had not resulted in the loss of access to the information, the alleged disadvantage had not crystallised and this claim was not established.

Bullying, discrimination and whistleblowing claims

Ms Hankins also claimed that HHL bullied and harassed her in seeking the return of the laptop. The Authority did not accept that claim. Although Ms Hankins could retain the laptop in the circumstances, HHL's request for its return was not found to be unreasonable or to create a health and safety risk.

Her discrimination claim also failed. Ms Hankins relied on ethical belief and employment status, but the Authority noted that these are defined statutory grounds with particular meanings. In this setting, ethical belief concerns the absence of a religious belief and employment status concerns being unemployed. The facts did not establish discrimination on either ground.

Finally, Ms Hankins relied on the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022. She had raised concerns about stock adjustments, product codes, accurate records, authorisation of transactions, and internal approval processes, including with HHL's chief executive. The Authority held those concerns were about internal accounting processes and did not amount to serious wrongdoing as defined by the legislation. As a result, they were not protected disclosures and the retaliation claim failed.

Remedies

The Authority treated the two successful personal grievances separately for compensation purposes. The compensation was directed to the actual emotional harm caused, rather than being punitive.

For the IT-access disadvantage, Ms Hankins said she felt that her work had no value and that she was a waste of space. The Authority considered both the nature of that harm and the fact that HHL had no legal or factual basis for cutting off system access early. It awarded $3,500 under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

For the unjustified dismissal, Ms Hankins described feeling isolated and shocked by HHL's unilateral decision to conclude the relationship before the end of the fixed term. The Authority awarded a further $8,000 under section 123(1)(c)(i).

Four weeks' salary rather than an open-ended lost-wages award

HHL had paid Ms Hankins up to the agreed final date of 15 August 2025. The Authority found that a proper process would not have extended the employment beyond that date because the fixed-term agreement was valid and would still have concluded then.

The outstanding loss was therefore the contractually required notice period. Under the agreement, early termination required one month's notice or payment in lieu. HHL was ordered to pay the equivalent of four weeks' salary.

The Authority found Ms Hankins did not contribute to the circumstances that gave rise to the successful personal grievances, so there was no reduction under section 124 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Why this case matters

This determination illustrates the two separate questions that commonly arise with fixed-term employment. First, was the fixed term lawfully agreed under section 66? Secondly, did the employer act consistently with that agreement during the fixed term? HHL succeeded on the first question but failed on the second.

An employee's work can be restricted or reduced near the planned end of a fixed term, but employers need to take care not to communicate or act in a way which objectively brings the relationship to an end before the agreed date. Telling an employee to return all property, removing system access, stating there is no further work, and discussing final pay can collectively amount to dismissal even where a final payment will still be made through the scheduled end date.

The case also reinforces the importance of specific early-termination provisions in a fixed-term agreement. Where the contract requires notice or pay in lieu, the employer cannot simply end active employment early because the business no longer needs the employee's services.

Practical takeaways

• Record the fixed-term reason clearly: maternity cover can be a genuine reason, provided the agreement identifies the reason and the end date or event.
• Do not confuse a valid fixed term with a right to end it early: a lawful end date does not automatically permit premature termination.
• Check the early-termination clause: if notice or pay in lieu is required, follow it exactly.
• Be careful with exit communications: an email saying the engagement has concluded, coupled with an early property-return direction, can be treated as notice of dismissal.
• Keep work systems available where employment remains on foot: removing essential IT access before the term ends can be a separate unjustified disadvantage.
• Protect relevant evidence sensibly: a dispute over a work laptop may require a practical evidence-preservation solution rather than an immediate demand for its return.
• Use discrimination and whistleblowing provisions precisely: statutory concepts such as employment status, ethical belief, and serious wrongdoing have defined meanings that must be met on the evidence.
• Remedies follow the counterfactual: where the fixed term would have ended shortly anyway, lost wages may be confined to notice pay, while compensation may still address the manner of the breach.

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.