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
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation Limited told an automotive technician his employment was ending because it would not renew what it said was a one-year contract. The ERA found the agreement was permanent, the dismissal process was non-existent, and the employer's later allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft were not substantiated...

Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...

Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

After a customer incident captured on CCTV, the employer emailed that the matter was serious misconduct and 'will result in instant dismissal effective from 4 June'. The ERA held that was an unequivocal sending away: the worker was dismissed without any fair process and did not abandon...

Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

A sales manager was put on 'special leave' while four bullying/harassment complaints were being investigated, but his phone and laptop were taken and he was removed from the workplace without prior consultation. Five days later he was dismissed for serious misconduct without being given the...

Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

A general manager resigned after months of dispute about a short term incentive (STI) clause. He believed he was entitled to 25% of salary, paid quarterly, and that KPIs had to be issued by 1 April. The ERA rejected the constructive dismissal claim because the STI was discretionary and annual,...

Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

A lead developer on a high-pressure KFC app project posted about exhaustion on Instagram and sent blunt messages to a junior developer. FutureCo treated this as serious misconduct and dismissed him. The ERA held the dismissal unjustified, found excessive hours were an unjustified disadvantage,...

Browse topics