Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor [2025] NZERA 818

A report-style summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

• Shubanghi Kaushal was employed by Ambridge Rose Manor Limited (ARML) as a Healthcare Assistant from 12 December 2022 until her dismissal on 12 September 2025.
• ARML owns and operates four aged care facilities in Auckland. Ms Kaushal worked at The Manor.
• The Manor offers hospital and rest home level care. Mr Brian Pullar is the Chief Operating Officer and has overall responsibility for the operational management of the four facilities. Ms Teresa Cheetham is employed as the Clinical Manager.
• The Manor employs approximately 105 staff.
• ARML is an accredited employer. Ms Kaushal was granted a work visa under the accredited employer scheme to work as a healthcare assistant for ARML. Ms Kaushal commenced employment on 12 December 2022.
• Ms Kaushal says she was unjustifiably suspended on 10 September 2025 and unjustifiably dismissed on 12 September 2025.
• Ms Kaushal seeks permanent reinstatement to her former role, compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings, and reimbursement of lost wages for a period of 13 weeks following her dismissal.
• ARML says it undertook a fair and reasonable investigation into complaints it received about Ms Kaushal. Furthermore, the decision to dismiss Ms Kaushal for serious misconduct was one a fair and reasonable employer could make in all the circumstances at...
• The key dates leading up to the termination of Ms Kaushal's employment are set out below: (a) On 9 September 2025, Mr Pullar received a written complaint from a staff member about Ms Kaushal's involvement with an incident concerning a resident on 6...
• CCTV footage of key events, which included recorded audio, was provided to and reviewed by the Authority: (a) The incident on 6 September 2025. (b) The disciplinary meeting on 12 September 2025. (c) The resumption of the disciplinary meeting on 12...

Key findings and reasoning

• Ms Kaushal seeks permanent reinstatement to her former role, compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings, and reimbursement of lost wages for a period of 13 weeks following her dismissal.
• I also consider Ms Kaushal's perspective. She is currently not employed. In the event I found the dismissal to be unjustified, she wishes to show an employer this determination to explain what occured. The industry she is seeking employment in, and the...
• The issues requiring investigation and determination: (a) Was Ms Kaushal unjustifiably dismissed? (b) Was Ms Kaushal unjustifiably disadvantaged by the suspension? (c) If so, is Ms Kaushal entitled to a consideration of remedies including: i. Reinstatement...
• The legal test for determining whether a dismissal is justified, is whether the employer's actions, and how the employer acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal occurred.7
• The Authority must also have regard to the resources available to the employer when considering the employer's actions in context.8 There may be a range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer, the task of the Authority is to objectively...
• A fair and reasonable employer could not conclude that Ms Kaushal's behaviour on 6 September amounted to serious misconduct. Could a fair and reasonable employer rely on Ms Kaushal's final warning in concluding dismissal was justified?
• The nature of the misconduct, when viewed in context, is very much at the lower end of the spectrum. A fair and reasonable employer could not rely on clause 5.2 of the individual employment agreement in concluding the decision to dismiss was justified...
• ARML failed to adequately consider alternatives to dismissal because it had closed its mind to options short of dismissal. Summary of findings - unjustified dismissal
• Ms Kaushal has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. She is entitled to a consideration of the remedies sought. Permanent reinstatement
• Although Mr Pullar said he had lost trust and confidence in Ms Kaushal, this cannot be the sole ground on which to refuse reinstatement given my findings that the dismissal was unjustified.25

Orders and payments mentioned

• Costs: $6,000
• Other payments: $6,000

Note: amounts are extracted from the orders wording. Check the PDF for full context (gross/net, tax, contribution, and deadlines).

Practical takeaways

• ERA dismissal cases are assessed using s 103A (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances).
• Unjustified disadvantage requires unjustified employer conduct and an actual disadvantage.
• Always read the orders section carefully for the payment amounts, deadlines, and any compliance steps.

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.