Tammy Maxine Stevenson v Mountain Chalets (2005) Limited, Kyle James Purton and Hayley Laura Curtis [2025] NZERA 248

A detailed, plain-English summary of an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination about (1) whether the employee was dismissed, (2) whether she was genuinely casual or had become permanent part-time, and (3) an unjustified disadvantage finding linked to how the employer handled her hours concerns. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What happened

The employee worked as a cleaner from August 2018 at accommodation properties owned by Mountain Chalets (2005) Limited (MCL), a family-run business in Twizel. The relationship was informal. Work was often allocated by short text messages asking whether she could work the next day, and the hours could vary seasonally.

A written employment agreement was signed on 21 September 2020. It labelled the job as "casual". In practice, the employee said her pattern of work was consistently around 20 to 25 hours per week, spread across several days, and she was expected to arrange leave with the owners. The employer accepted the work was regular in the sense that there was routine cleaning to be done, but maintained that any particular day was an offer the employee could accept or decline.

Another important feature of the relationship was how annual holidays were handled. The employee was paid holiday pay "on top" of her hourly rate rather than taking paid annual leave. That can sometimes be lawful for genuinely casual employees, but it becomes a compliance problem if the employment is not truly casual.

In mid-2023 the employee became concerned about the regularity and level of her hours, particularly after workload changes and management changes at the business. Matters came to a head in early September 2023 after a workplace interaction with a manager (Hayley Curtis) and then a later phone call with the owner (Kyle Purton) about whether the business would provide guaranteed hours.

The employee believed she had been fired during that phone call on 10 September 2023. The employer denied any dismissal and said she was not fired. The parties then exchanged texts where the employee asked for an email confirming the day she was fired, while the employer responded that she had not been fired and also said it did not keep timesheets. Mediation was arranged but did not proceed, and the matter ultimately went to an investigation meeting.

What the Authority had to decide

• Joinder: Was there any legal basis to join the second and third respondents (Kyle Purton and Hayley Curtis) personally to the proceedings?
• Status: Was the employee genuinely casual, or had the relationship become permanent part-time (despite a "casual" label in the written agreement)?
• Dismissal: Was the employment terminated at the employer's initiative (including whether the 10 September 2023 phone call amounted to an unequivocal "sending away")?
• Unjustified disadvantage: If there was no dismissal, did the employer's actions or omissions nevertheless disadvantage the employee unjustifiably?
• Holiday pay: Was holiday pay administered lawfully, and if not, what payment orders should be made?

Key findings

1) The relationship was not truly casual by the end

The Authority accepted the arrangement may have started as casual. However, looking at the length of the relationship, the regular pattern that developed, and the employee's ongoing availability and reliability, the Authority found the real nature of the relationship had evolved into permanent part-time employment. The Authority found the "casual" label (and the pay-as-you-go holiday approach) did not accurately reflect the real relationship under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

2) Dismissal was not proved

The Authority was not able to conclusively determine what was said during the 10 September phone call. It applied an objective approach to the question of dismissal. Ultimately, it did not find there was an unequivocal dismissal at the employer's initiative. The unjustified dismissal personal grievance was therefore not upheld.

3) Unjustified disadvantage was proved

Even though there was no dismissal finding, the Authority considered whether the employer acted as a fair and reasonable employer would have in all the circumstances. It found the employer's actions and omissions in addressing the employee's concerns about hours, and the way it reinforced "casual" status in terms open to misinterpretation, were not fair and reasonable. That conduct caused detriment and distress and amounted to unjustified disadvantage.

4) No personal joinder of individuals

The Authority did not join Kyle Purton or Hayley Curtis personally as respondents because no legal basis for joinder was made out. The substantive orders were made against the company.

Penalties, compensation, and holiday pay

The Authority considered whether penalties should be imposed (including for alleged good faith breaches and an alleged failure to produce wage, time, and holiday records when requested), but declined to order penalties because the alleged breaches were not established to the required threshold.

For remedies, the Authority assessed the employee's distress as real but not long lasting. It awarded $8,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.

Because the Authority found the employee was permanent part-time (not casual), it also addressed annual holidays compliance. It ordered the employer to calculate and pay outstanding holiday pay for the entire period of employment in accordance with section 24 of the Holidays Act 2003. The parties were expected to agree the amount, with liberty to apply back to the Authority if they could not.

Orders made

• Unjustified disadvantage upheld: the employer was ordered to pay the remedies below.
• Compensation: $8,000 under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
• Holiday pay: outstanding holiday pay for the entire employment to be calculated under section 24 of the Holidays Act 2003 and paid (amount to be agreed or determined on further application).
• Costs: costs were reserved (costs timetable set in the determination).

Why this case matters

• Labels do not control reality: calling someone "casual" does not make it so. ERA will look at how the relationship actually operated over time.
• Hours and expectations matter: where a regular pattern and expectation develops, employers need to manage changes properly and communicate in good faith.
• Holiday pay compliance: paying holiday pay "on top" can create significant backpay risk if the employment is not genuinely casual.
• Even without a dismissal: an employer can still be liable for unjustified disadvantage if its actions are not fair and reasonable.

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.