ClickCease

SINCLAIR-WALKER v ALERT MONITORING OTAGO (1994) LIMITED [2026] NZERA 29 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $25,000 compensation; $16,900 lost remuneration; penalty ordered.

Outcome: see the Authority's findings and orders in the embedded determination. After outlining three concerns about Mr Sinclair-Walker's work performance, Ms Buckingham told Mr Sinclair-Walker that he was dismissed for serious misconduct.


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 articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

A retail assistant was dismissed by WhatsApp during a probation period after the employer relied on KPI metrics from CCTV and 'performance reports' but never raised concerns in writing or held any disciplinary meeting. The ERA held the employer ignored its own staged warning policy and the s...

Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Interim reinstatement decision. A field operations manager with 16 years service was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct after an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report. The ERA found a serious question to be tried on unjustified dismissal (including a mismatch between...

Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial period, wages/entitlements; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Outcome: see the Authority's findings and orders in the embedded determination. At the material time, the first respondent, Dong Construction Limited (Dong Construction), was an Accredited Employer under Immigration New Zealand's (INZ's) Accredited Employer Work Visa Sc...

Rimple Rimple v NZ - Kebabs Limited, Rupinder Kaur Bal, Gursahib Singh Dhillon, and Harpal Bal [2026] NZERA 128 - premium sought for AEWV role; abandonment dismissal unjustified after visa cancellation; $22,620 lost wages, $14,000 compensation, $16,000 penalty plus entitlements

A Rotorua kebab restaurant recruited a kitchen hand from India on an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV). The ERA found the employer (through a director) sought a $34,000 premium to secure the job, breaching s 12A Wages Protection Act, and imposed a $16,000 penalty. The employee was later...

Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Anztec made a senior assembly technician redundant in a small-business restructure. The ERA accepted the redundancy was genuine and the dismissal was substantively justified, but found significant good faith/consultation defects - including failure to proactively disclose information.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

A retail assistant was dismissed during a probation period after the employer said CCTV and KPI reports showed targets were not met. The ERA found the employer had not provided adequate POS and legal process training, yet relied on KPI results, and then terminated employment out of the blue by...

Browse topics