STEWART v PULSE 2012 LIMITED t/a BROWNE ST [2025] NZERA 241

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, During the meeting he had said allegations of theft had been made but he explained he purchased and used his own supplies for his own food preparation, not those belonging to Browne St. After that, Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart because it believed that he had been preparing food on its premises during times when he was noted as being on a shift. Later, There was thus no evidence that Mr Hodges and Mr Fraser considered any alternative to dismissal prior to making that decision at the conclusion of the meeting on 9 January 2024. The determination records that Mr Stewart's evidence was that he was informed his employment had been terminated immediately at the end of the meeting. The Authority notes that In regard to substantive justification I note that Pulse 2012 claimed that it had concerns about Mr Stewart's performance prior to the meeting on 9 January 2024, but it's evidence is that these concerns were raised informally on occasion. Ultimately, This was a serious allegation which it would appear had clearly influenced Mr Hodges and Mr Fraser in making the decision to dismiss Mr Stewart. In the end, In all the circumstances at the relevant time, The Authority found that dismissing Mr Stewart was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could make.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are STEWART (employee) and PULSE 2012 LIMITED t/a BROWNE ST (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 15 April 2025.
• Authority member: Eleanor Robinson.

Key events described

• During the meeting he had said allegations of theft had been made but he explained he purchased and used his own supplies for his own food preparation, not those belonging to Browne St.
• Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart because it believed that he had been preparing food on its premises during times when he was noted as being on a shift.
• There was thus no evidence that Mr Hodges and Mr Fraser considered any alternative to dismissal prior to making that decision at the conclusion of the meeting on 9 January 2024.
• Mr Stewart's evidence was that he was informed his employment had been terminated immediately at the end of the meeting.
• In regard to substantive justification I note that Pulse 2012 claimed that it had concerns about Mr Stewart's performance prior to the meeting on 9 January 2024, but it's evidence is that these concerns were raised informally on occasion.
• This was a serious allegation which it would appear had clearly influenced Mr Hodges and Mr Fraser in making the decision to dismiss Mr Stewart.
• In all the circumstances at the relevant time, The Authority found that dismissing Mr Stewart was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could make.
• Had Mr Stewart discussed the extent of his usage and informed Mr Fraser when he would be using the Browne St facilities, this may have been accommodated given the supportive attitude held, and the situation which led to his dismissal on 9 January 2024 might not have arisen.
• The Authority found that Mr Stewart contributed to the situation which led to his dismissal and reduce the remedy ordered by way of compensation by 17.5% to $14,850.00.

Decision markers

• In all the circumstances at the relevant time, The Authority found that dismissing Mr Stewart was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could make.
• The Authority found that Mr Stewart contributed to the situation which led to his dismissal and reduce the remedy ordered by way of compensation by 17.5% to $14,850.00.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $14, 850.00
• Penalty: $2, 500
• Costs: Costs considered.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.