RMD v LWQ [2025] NZERA 535

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, On 31 March 2024, RMD emailed her business partner FEN, advising that she was suspending access to the company's online shopping portal and was about to change banks and ensure that only she had access to the company accounts. After that, In addition, a consultant CGH was called by RMD to give evidence about a report he provided to JGN about phone account connectivity in April or May 2024. Later, TCB dated this second conversation to 23 February 2024, as she kept a stringent diary as she worked a changeable roster, and after consulting her diary, TCB was of the firm opinion that she had heard about the ending of RMD's employment with LWQ prior to this date. The determination records that I also note that there was some discussion at the investigation meeting about RMD's obligations to report her income to MSD on a weekly basis, and how important this was to her. The Authority notes that In their absence, The Authority concluded it is more likely than not that RMD does not in fact have any contemporaneous evidential support that would suggest she truly believed her employment with LWQ continued after her last wages payment on 20 February 2024. Ultimately, Based on the totality of the evidence, The Authority was satisfied that RMD was not dismissed, but that her employment came to an end by way of mutual agreement on or about 16 February 2024, with her last pay being made on 20 February 2024. In the end, When considering the allegations made against JGN by RMD, The Authority found that they fall short of the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act in two respects.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are RMD (employee) and LWQ (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 17, 18, and 19 June 2025 in Nelson and by AVL (3 days).
• Authority member: Claire English.

Key events described

• On 31 March 2024, RMD emailed her business partner FEN, advising that she was suspending access to the company's online shopping portal and was about to change banks and ensure that only she had access to the company accounts.
• In addition, a consultant CGH was called by RMD to give evidence about a report he provided to JGN about phone account connectivity in April or May 2024.
• TCB dated this second conversation to 23 February 2024, as she kept a stringent diary as she worked a changeable roster, and after consulting her diary, TCB was of the firm opinion that she had heard about the ending of RMD's employment with LWQ prior to this date.
• I also note that there was some discussion at the investigation meeting about RMD's obligations to report her income to MSD on a weekly basis, and how important this was to her.
• When considering the allegations made against JGN by RMD, The Authority found that they fall short of the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act in two respects.
• Second, The Authority found that the allegations overall were not allegations of serious wrongdoing within the discloser's organisation, e.g within LWQ.

Decision markers

• In their absence, The Authority concluded it is more likely than not that RMD does not in fact have any contemporaneous evidential support that would suggest she truly believed her employment with LWQ continued after her last wages payment on 20 February 2024.
• Based on the totality of the evidence, The Authority was satisfied that RMD was not dismissed, but that her employment came to an end by way of mutual agreement on or about 16 February 2024, with her last pay being made on 20 February 2024.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Holiday pay: $265.50
• 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.