RAINA v HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 469

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, The Authority's Investigation [5] On 31 January 2024, I held a case management conference with the representatives to set a timetable for Mr Raina's claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. After that, Disciplinary process [24] On the morning of 30 August 2024, Mr Cals gave Mr Raina a letter raising the incident of mobile phone usage whilst driving. Later, The letter invited Mr Raina to a disciplinary meeting on 3 September 2024 to discuss the allegation but failed to advise him he could bring a support person to the meeting. The determination records that In relation to the two prior incidents of using a cell phone while driving on 2 August 2024, Mr Raina did not receive warnings. The Authority notes that It was all very casual and, in Mr Cal's words, (quoted wording omitted) [33] In relation to the incident on 27 August 2024 Mr Raina was given the letter of 30 August 2024 the same day inviting him to attend a disciplinary meeting on 3 September 2024. Ultimately, The directive included (quoted wording omitted) However Mr Raina noted that he had not been suspended or placed on non-driving duties, but was instructed by his employer to continue driving a heavy truck, all day 30 August 2024 and all day 2 September 2024, pending the outcome of the disciplinary process. In the end, The 30 August 2024 letter contained a generic warning about all options being open, up to and including dismissal, but Mr Raina stated that based on his previous interactions with the employer he had reasonable grounds to believe that dismissal was not a potential outcome.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are RAINA (employee) and HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 29 April 2025.
• Authority member: Andrew Gane.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• On 4 September 2024, Mr Raina's employment ended by way of dismissal.
• The Authority's Investigation [5] On 31 January 2024, I held a case management conference with the representatives to set a timetable for Mr Raina's claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.
• Following the investigation meeting on 29 April 2025 written closing submissions were lodged from each of the parties' representatives.
• The 2 August 2024 incident [16] On 2 August 2024 Leon Van Heerden, fleet maintenance manager, witnessed Mr Raina using his mobile phone while driving his class 5 truck along Spartan Road (a public road connected to a state highway).
• Disciplinary process [24] On the morning of 30 August 2024, Mr Cals gave Mr Raina a letter raising the incident of mobile phone usage whilst driving.
• The letter invited Mr Raina to a disciplinary meeting on 3 September 2024 to discuss the allegation but failed to advise him he could bring a support person to the meeting.
• In relation to the two prior incidents of using a cell phone while driving on 2 August 2024, Mr Raina did not receive warnings.
• It was all very casual and, in Mr Cal's words, (quoted wording omitted) [33] In relation to the incident on 27 August 2024 Mr Raina was given the letter of 30 August 2024 the same day inviting him to attend a disciplinary meeting on 3 September 2024.
• The directive included (quoted wording omitted) However Mr Raina noted that he had not been suspended or placed on non-driving duties, but was instructed by his employer to continue driving a heavy truck, all day 30 August 2024 and all day 2 September 2024, pending the outcome of the disciplinary process.
• The 30 August 2024 letter contained a generic warning about all options being open, up to and including dismissal, but Mr Raina stated that based on his previous interactions with the employer he had reasonable grounds to believe that dismissal was not a potential outcome.
• Mr Raina's position is that a low- level traffic offence such as mobile phone use while driving is not serious enough to warrant dismissal without some prior formal warnings.
• the employer's performance and disciplinary policy states on page 3 that: Typically, steps in the warning process are as follows: Warning, Final warning, Dismissal.
• In the circumstances The Authority found the decision to dismiss Mr Raina was not predetermined and dismissal was a possible and available outcome to the employer.
• The Authority found it was open to the employer to conclude summary dismissal was an appropriate outcome in the circumstances.
• For the above reasons, The Authority found Mr Raina was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer on 3 September 2024, with his dismissal confirmed by Mr Cal's email of 4 September 2024.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• In the circumstances The Authority found the decision to dismiss Mr Raina was not predetermined and dismissal was a possible and available outcome to the employer.
• The Authority found it was open to the employer to conclude summary dismissal was an appropriate outcome in the circumstances.
• The Authority found those requirements were not met and Mr Raina was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer for this reason.
• For the above reasons, The Authority found Mr Raina was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer on 3 September 2024, with his dismissal confirmed by Mr Cal's email of 4 September 2024.
• Although the employer's investigation into Mr Raina was procedurally unfair, The Authority found Mr Raina has failed to provide the required level of trust and confidence to the employer to allow him to drive for the employer.
• In the circumstances The Authority found Mr Raina should not be reinstated.
• The Authority found the employer is to pay Mr Raina two months' salary for lost wages.
• The Authority was satisfied Mr Raina experienced harm under section 123(1)(c)(i).
• The Authority found in the circumstances outlined above HRTLL is to pay Mr Raina compensation of $12,000.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Wages: Reimbursement of 2 months' salary
• Compensation: $6,000
• 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

• 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.