ClickCease

Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.

The short answer

The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $25,000 compensation and $16,900 gross lost remuneration. It also ordered $763 KiwiSaver, $3,076.33 holiday-pay arrears and a $1,000 penalty, split between the employee and Crown.


SINCLAIR-WALKER v ALERT MONITORING OTAGO (1994) LIMITED [2026] NZERA 29

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 29
  • Registry: Christchurch
  • Parties: SINCLAIR-WALKER v ALERT MONITORING OTAGO (1994) LIMITED
  • Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld.

Story in plain English

Mr Sinclair-Walker was dismissed for alleged serious misconduct after performance concerns were raised. The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified and made orders for compensation and lost remuneration, as well as KiwiSaver and holiday pay arrears. A penalty was also ordered (split between the employee and the Crown). Costs were reserved.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
  • The parties are SINCLAIR-WALKER (employee) and ALERT MONITORING OTAGO (1994) LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 16 October 2025.
  • Authority member: Peter van Keulen.
  • Employment ended: 23 June 2024.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

  • After outlining three concerns about Mr Sinclair-Walker's work performance, Ms Buckingham told Mr Sinclair-Walker that he was dismissed for serious misconduct.
  • The Authority's investigation [10] I investigated Mr Sinclair-Walker's employment relationship problem with Alert Monitoring by receiving written evidence and documents from him and holding an investigation meeting on 16 October 2025.
  • Mr Sinclair-Walker was dismissed by Alert Monitoring on 23 June 2024.
  • I agree with this assessment - Mr Sinclair-Walker's compensation for being unjustifiably dismissed is $25,000. 2 Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 71, Waikato District Health Board v Kathleen Ann Archibald [2017] NZEmpC 132, Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113.
  • Alert Monitoring must pay Mr Sinclair-Walker $16,900 as lost remuneration from his unjustifiable dismissal.
  • In a letter to Alert Monitoring dated 19 September 2024 Mr Sinclair-Walker's advocate requested a copy of Mr Sinclair-Walker' wages and time records.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

  • The Authority found Mr Sinclair-Walker established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
  • Orders were made for compensation, lost remuneration, and employment standards-related amounts, plus a penalty.
  • Costs were reserved.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation (hurt and humiliation): $25,000.
  • Lost remuneration: $16,900 gross.
  • KiwiSaver: $763 (employer contribution).
  • Holiday pay arrears: $3,076.33 gross.
  • Penalty: $1,000 (split $500 to the employee and $500 to the Crown).
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics