RISELEY v HUNTLY JOINERY 2000 LIMITED [2025] NZERA 342

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, Mr Riseley says his resignation should be treated as a constructive dismissal because the way the employer treated him meant he could not have been expected to continue working under such circumstances. After that, On 8 December 2023, Mr Riseley resigned and raised a personal grievance with the employer. Later, The letter stated his position that he had been told during the phone calls to hand in his notice and that he was on his last chance, that no performance issues had been brought to his attention in the past or any reasons why he should be worried about his job security. The determination records that It was also recorded that although the email from Mr Curran stated he did not want him to resign from the company, the email turned into a list of performance concerns and a reminder to him that Mr Strichen had been elevated to a more senior role in the workgroup which Mr Riseley knew nothing about. The Authority notes that the employer say this supports its position that Mr Riseley intended to resign to set up his own business and his personal grievance claims were all manufactured in order to justify a constructive dismissal claim. Ultimately, Constructive dismissal Constructive dismissal refers to a situation where, as a result of an employer's action or inaction, an employee's job or workplace becomes untenable, and they are left with no option but to resign. In the end, The Authority needs to then assess whether the breach of duty by the employer was of sufficient seriousness to make resignation reasonably foreseeable.2 Mr Riseley has the burden of establishing his resignation was actually a constructive dismissal.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are RISELEY (employee) and HUNTLY JOINERY 2000 LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 16 and 17 January 2025 (2 days).
• Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin.

Key events described

• Mr Riseley says his resignation should be treated as a constructive dismissal because the way the employer treated him meant he could not have been expected to continue working under such circumstances.
• On 8 December 2023, Mr Riseley resigned and raised a personal grievance with the employer.
• The letter stated his position that he had been told during the phone calls to hand in his notice and that he was on his last chance, that no performance issues had been brought to his attention in the past or any reasons why he should be worried about his job security.
• It was also recorded that although the email from Mr Curran stated he did not want him to resign from the company, the email turned into a list of performance concerns and a reminder to him that Mr Strichen had been elevated to a more senior role in the workgroup which Mr Riseley knew nothing about.
• the employer say this supports its position that Mr Riseley intended to resign to set up his own business and his personal grievance claims were all manufactured in order to justify a constructive dismissal claim.
• Constructive dismissal Constructive dismissal refers to a situation where, as a result of an employer's action or inaction, an employee's job or workplace becomes untenable, and they are left with no option but to resign.
• The Authority needs to then assess whether the breach of duty by the employer was of sufficient seriousness to make resignation reasonably foreseeable.2 Mr Riseley has the burden of establishing his resignation was actually a constructive dismissal.
• The Authority was satisfied the cause of Mr Riseley's resignation was the actions of the employer.
• No performance appraisals were conducted, there were no weekly or regular meetings or reporting requirements and the individual employment agreement does not identify who Mr Riseley reported to.
• However, the list of specific jobs provided in the email after the phone call and the plan of supervised visits puts Mr Curran's concerns about Mr Riseley into a category that is something more than general upskilling and more akin to performance concerns.
• Mr Riseley could have expected a fair process be adopted to dealing with performance issues and an opportunity to respond before the phone calls and the email setting out the schedule of visits.
• The changes to the work group and performance issues occurred against the background of the series of actions taken by the employer that led to a situation where resignation was foreseeable.

Decision markers

• The Authority was satisfied the cause of Mr Riseley's resignation was the actions of the employer.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $20,000.00
• Costs: Costs awarded.

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

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• 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.