ClickCease

SWENSON v AKITIO TRUCKING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 214 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. On 21 December 2022, he was dismissed as Akitio reached the conclusion he had punched another driver in the face.


SWENSON v AKITIO TRUCKING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 214

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 214
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: SWENSON v AKITIO TRUCKING LIMITED
  • Authority member: Claire English
  • Hearing date: 25 November 2024
  • Determination date: 16 April 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, 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.
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