ClickCease

Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart after alleging he had prepared food for himself at the workplace while recorded as working, in a dispute that also involved allegations of theft. The ERA examined whether the evidence and disciplinary response could justify dismissal.

The short answer

The ERA held dismissal was not a decision open to a fair and reasonable employer. Mr Stewart's conduct contributed to the situation, so compensation was reduced by 17.5% to $14,850; a $2,500 penalty was also imposed.


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.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 241
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: STEWART v PULSE 2012 LIMITED t/a BROWNE ST
  • Authority member: Eleanor Robinson
  • Hearing date: 15 April 2025
  • Determination date: 2 May 2025
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

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.
  • 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.

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.
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