Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor Limited [2025] NZERA 818 - Unjustified dismissal, unjustified suspension, reinstatement ordered
In Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor Limited [2025] NZERA 818, the ERA found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed and unjustifiably disadvantaged by the suspension process. The ERA ordered permanent reinstatement from 22 December 2025, $6,000 compensation (after a 20% contribution reduction), and payment of lost remuneration from 12 September 2025 to 22 December 2025 (amount to be fixed by agreement or referred back). Costs were reserved.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor Limited [2025] NZERA 818. It is a practical case on (1) what is and is not "serious misconduct", (2) why an employer must keep an open mind to alternatives to dismissal, (3) the consultation needed before suspension, and (4) reinstatement as the primary remedy.
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 818
- Authority member: Simon Greening
- Location: Auckland
- Investigation meeting: 12 December 2025
- Determination date: 17 December 2025
- Applicant: Shubanghi Kaushal
- Respondent: Ambridge Rose Manor Limited (aged care facility)
Background and allegations
Ms Kaushal was employed as a healthcare assistant from 12 December 2022 until she was suspended on 10 September 2025 and dismissed on 12 September 2025. The dismissal followed a resident complaint and staff complaint about an incident on 6 September 2025. The ERA reviewed CCTV footage (with audio) of the incident and the disciplinary meeting.
Non-publication application declined
The employer applied for anonymisation / non-publication. The ERA declined, finding specific adverse reputational consequences were unlikely and that open justice should prevail.
Key findings on dismissal
- Not serious misconduct: The ERA found Ms Kaushal's behaviour on 6 September 2025 did not amount to serious misconduct.
- Final warning not relied on: The employer could not rely on the final written warning in the way it did.
- Closed mind to alternatives: The employer failed to adequately consider alternatives to dismissal and had effectively closed its mind to options short of dismissal.
Suspension (unjustified disadvantage)
The ERA found Ms Kaushal was unjustifiably disadvantaged by the process leading to suspension. The meeting came out of the blue, with no notice that suspension would be discussed and no real opportunity for her to respond. However, the ERA declined to award a separate remedy for suspension because the suspension was short and there was no evidence of impact.
Remedies and orders
Reinstatement (primary remedy)
- Permanent reinstatement ordered: Reinstatement was found practicable and reasonable.
- Payroll and roster: Reinstatement was ordered from Monday 22 December 2025 (including payroll and the next roster), with any required training to be undertaken.
Compensation and lost wages
- Compensation assessed: $7,500 was assessed as appropriate, then reduced for contribution.
- Contribution reduction: A 20% reduction applied to compensation only.
- Compensation ordered: $6,000.
- Lost remuneration: Lost remuneration was ordered for the period 12 September 2025 to Monday 22 December 2025 inclusive (amount to be fixed by agreement; if difficulties, the parties could advise the ERA by 4pm Monday 9 January 2026).
- Payment timeframe: The orders required payment within 21 days of the determination (for the compensation and the fixed lost remuneration amount).
Costs
Costs were reserved. If the parties could not agree, the applicant could file a costs memorandum within 28 days, with a reply due 14 days after service. The ERA indicated it would usually determine costs on its "daily tariff" basis unless adjustments were justified.
Practical takeaways
For employers
- Do not treat a final warning as an automatic "dismissal next time" switch. Keep an open mind to alternatives and document the reasoning.
- If you propose suspension, give notice and a real opportunity for the employee to comment, unless urgency makes that impracticable (and even then document why).
- Where privacy is involved (for example, resident dignity in a care setting), assess the seriousness carefully but still apply a fair process.
- Reinstatement is the primary remedy. If you want to resist it, you need evidence that reinstatement is not practicable and not reasonable.
For employees
- Ask for the allegations and the evidence. If CCTV or other evidence exists, request access before responding.
- Take a support person if you can. Even if you feel confident, a support person helps with note-taking and process fairness.
- Reinstatement can be realistic, especially in larger workplaces where duties can be managed to reduce conflict risk.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form
Related articles
Browse all articles![Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments
A practical summary of Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18. The ERA found constructive dismissal and ordered compensation, lost wages, wage and holiday arrears, and repayment of an unlawful premium payment.
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd t/a Kafal Indian Cuisine [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal and wage arrears
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd [2026] NZERA 13. The Authority upheld unjustified dismissal, ordered compensation and lost wages (reduced for contributory conduct), and ordered wage and public holiday arrears with interest.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal
In George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14, the ERA held the 90-day trial was invalid because the employee had already worked (and been paid) before signing. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded lost wages and compensation.
Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies
Summary of Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The ERA found an unjustified dismissal and ordered lost wages ($6,656) and compensation ($15,000).
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination. The ERA ordered $14,040.00 gross lost wages (3 months cap) and $17,500.00 compensation, with costs reserved. The determination includes a temporary non-publication order.
Jingkai Wang v Envoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845 - Not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage and $1,500 compensation
In Jingkai Wang v E|nvoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845, the ERA found the employee was not dismissed and had resigned. A limited unjustified disadvantage was established due to the employer's failure to respond to concerns raised in the resignation email. The ERA awarded $1,500 compensation (after a 25% reduction for blameworthy conduct). Costs were reserved.