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
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked long hours as head chef for Matthew Roberts at Matt's Kitchen but was paid sporadically, sometimes in cash, and often not at all. Mr Roberts argued the arrangement was a contracting or business-support arrangement, partly connected with an alleged debt. The ERA found Ms Beattie was an employee. The Flexi Wage subsidy discussions, the intended employment agreement, her integration into the business, the absence of invoices, and the fact she worked under Mr Roberts' direction all pointed to employment. The failure to pay wages was a serious breach that foreseeably compelled her resignation, so the resignation was a constructive dismissal. Mr Roberts was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation, $14,040 lost wages, $23,050 gross wage arrears, $1,844 annual holiday arrears, PAYE and KiwiSaver accounting, and interest on wage and holiday arrears...

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were working holiday visa holders engaged by Queenstown Nursery Limited as casual nursery assistants. The employer argued their work was offered only day by day and could simply stop being offered. The ERA disagreed. An email promising Monday to Wednesday work for at least the next three weeks created an assignment extending to 23 April 2025. When QNL ended the work on 15 April, it said the reason was weather, but later acknowledged the applicants had been selected because they were considered less efficient. The Authority found no fair process, no evidence of substantive justification, and a breach of good faith. Each applicant was awarded $848 gross for four lost working days, including Easter Monday as an otherwise working day, and $2,000 compensation...

Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

JIT Limited dismissed Sukhmanpreet Singh after an argument with a director about annual leave. The ERA found the employer had unlawfully pressured him to write an annual-leave request, then suspended him by cancelling shifts without proper process, and later dismissed him without a fair investigation or fair opportunity to answer the full allegations. A pushing allegation was not established. The Authority also found wage and public-holiday arrears, record-keeping failures, and Wages Protection Act breaches. After a 15 percent contribution reduction, JITL was ordered to pay $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation, plus $5,176.80 arrears and interest, and penalties including $2,500 payable to Mr Singh and $4,500 payable to the Crown...

Steven David Mitchell v Tasman Rugby Union Incorporated [2026] NZERA 435 - CEO returned to payroll on interim reinstatement

Tasman Rugby Union summarily dismissed its CEO, Steven David Mitchell, for alleged serious misconduct. In this interim decision, the ERA did not finally determine the allegations. It found, however, that Mr Mitchell had a strongly arguable unjustified-dismissal case, including an arguable predetermination concern arising from a review process, how that review later fed into the disciplinary process, and Board communications that could indicate adverse and personalised views had formed before the decision. The Authority held that the new 2026 remedies amendments applied, but could not make definitive contribution or serious-misconduct findings at the interim stage. It ordered immediate reinstatement to payroll only, backdated to 21 March 2026, while reserving the substantive merits hearing...

Filisi Beswick v Friendly Loans Limited [2026] NZERA 436 - medical incapacity dismissal without a fair inquiry

Friendly Loans Limited dismissed Filisi Beswick for medical incapacity less than four weeks after she had been admitted to hospital with blurred vision and migraines. On the day of dismissal, she had told the company that her medical position had improved, that she had a negative Covid test, a valid driver licence and an updated medical certificate. She asked for a face-to-face meeting and to discuss work from home. The ERA held the company could not reasonably conclude she was incapable of her ongoing duties, had not sought her input, had not allowed sufficient recovery time, and had not considered alternatives. It also held a $2,439.09 loan deduction from final pay unlawful. The Authority ordered $24,436.09 in total...

Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Browse topics