RAPANA v UBP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 367

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, He remained at home until he was dismissed by way of letter on 8 January 2024. After that, Mr Stewart and Mr Beetma's evidence was that UBP was not in receipt of these other 4 certificates at the time the decision was made to dismiss Mr Rapana on 8 January 2024. Later, Mr Rapana was dismissed by way of letter dated 8 January 2024. The determination records that Mr Stewart's in-person evidence did not align with the reasons for dismissal given in the 8 January letter. The Authority notes that Mr Stewart also said that when deciding to dismiss, he took into account that Mr Rapana had tested positive for marijuana in June 2022, although this was not mentioned in the 8 January letter. Ultimately, Sufficiently investigated the circumstances before reaching the decision to dismiss; and b. In the end, In making the decision to dismiss, UBP did investigate the circumstances.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are RAPANA (employee) and UBP LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 27 March 2025.
• Authority member: Claire English.

Key events described

• He remained at home until he was dismissed by way of letter on 8 January 2024.
• Mr Stewart and Mr Beetma's evidence was that UBP was not in receipt of these other 4 certificates at the time the decision was made to dismiss Mr Rapana on 8 January 2024.
• Mr Rapana was dismissed by way of letter dated 8 January 2024.
• Mr Stewart's in-person evidence did not align with the reasons for dismissal given in the 8 January letter.
• Mr Stewart also said that when deciding to dismiss, he took into account that Mr Rapana had tested positive for marijuana in June 2022, although this was not mentioned in the 8 January letter.
• Sufficiently investigated the circumstances before reaching the decision to dismiss; and b.
• In making the decision to dismiss, UBP did investigate the circumstances.
• There was some discussion at the investigation meeting about the ACC claim for the incident of 19 October 2023 as in the end, that claim was not accepted by ACC.
• This information is certainly sufficient for UBP to commence a process either investigating potential abandonment (what Mr Stewart said happened), or investigating the ending of employment for medical incapacity (what was set out in the 8 January dismissal letter).
• In addition, Mr Rapana never knew that UBP was considering dismissing him, until he received a letter telling him the decision had already been made.
• The investigation meeting lasted for half a day, and the parties are encouraged to resolve any issue of costs between themselves bearing in mind the Authority's usual tariff, which for a half day hearing would amount to $2,250.00.

Decision markers

• The Authority found that this lack of communication directly contributed to Mr Rapana's dismissal, and will return to this when assessing remedies.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $10,200.00
• Costs: Costs considered.

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.