SWENSON v AKITIO TRUCKING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 214

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, On 21 December 2022, he was dismissed as Akitio reached the conclusion he had punched another driver in the face. After that, His view is that if Akitio had done something about that matter, the incident with the other driver that led to his dismissal would not have occurred. Later, Mr Swenson was suspended on pay and invited to a disciplinary meeting. The determination records that Mr Swenson was dismissed, by way of email to him from Akitio's representative Mr Livingston. The Authority notes that He says that if this had occurred, the incident as between him and Mr Beale which lead to his dismissal might not have occurred. Ultimately, In all the circumstances, The Authority found that it was not unjustified of Akitio to decide to take no further action in circumstances where Mr Swenson's allegations of theft could not be properly demonstrated. In the end, Sufficiently investigated the allegations against Mr Swenson before dismissing him; b.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are SWENSON (employee) and AKITIO TRUCKING LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 25 November 2024.
• Authority member: Claire English.

Key events described

• On 21 December 2022, he was dismissed as Akitio reached the conclusion he had punched another driver in the face.
• His view is that if Akitio had done something about that matter, the incident with the other driver that led to his dismissal would not have occurred.
• Mr Swenson was suspended on pay and invited to a disciplinary meeting.
• Mr Swenson was dismissed, by way of email to him from Akitio's representative Mr Livingston.
• He says that if this had occurred, the incident as between him and Mr Beale which lead to his dismissal might not have occurred.
• In all the circumstances, The Authority found that it was not unjustified of Akitio to decide to take no further action in circumstances where Mr Swenson's allegations of theft could not be properly demonstrated.
• Sufficiently investigated the allegations against Mr Swenson before dismissing him; b.
• This as well as the decision to hold the key meeting without Mr Swenson suggests the decision to dismiss Mr Swenson was not one made with an open mind.
• When considering whether Mr Swenson's actions contributed towards the situation that gave rise to his personal grievance of unjustified dismissal, The Authority found that they did so, and that they were blameworthy.

Decision markers

• In all the circumstances, The Authority found that it was not unjustified of Akitio to decide to take no further action in circumstances where Mr Swenson's allegations of theft could not be properly demonstrated.
• When considering whether Mr Swenson's actions contributed towards the situation that gave rise to his personal grievance of unjustified dismissal, The Authority found that they did so, and that they were blameworthy.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $11,250
• Lost wages / arrears: $4,725
• Costs: Costs reserved.

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.