ClickCease

Tracy Alpar v Bookieland Limited [2026] NZERA 191 - unsigned seasonal fixed term not enforceable; dismissal by WhatsApp; $12,000 compensation and $14,000 reimbursement

A chef at the Mussel Pot in Havelock worked under seasonal winter shutdowns and was given unsigned fixed term agreements that did not comply with s 66. After the 2024 shutdown, the employer's WhatsApp communications indicated she was no longer required, and she discovered recruiting posts for a...


Tracy Alpar v Bookieland Limited [2026] NZERA 191

This determination deals with a seasonal hospitality employment arrangement, unsigned "fixed term" paperwork that did not meet the statutory requirements in s 66, and a dismissal communicated by WhatsApp after the winter shutdown. The Authority found the employee was permanent, was dismissed (not mutually agreed to end employment), and the dismissal was unjustified. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 191
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin
  • Investigation meeting: 26 August 2025 (Blenheim)
  • Determination date: 30 March 2026
  • Claims: unjustified dismissal; compensation; lost wages; holiday arrears
  • Outcome: unjustified dismissal upheld; $12,000 compensation; $14,000 reimbursement (two months); annual holiday arrears ordered (amount to be agreed/calculated); costs reserved

Background

Ms Alpar worked at the Mussel Pot restaurant in Havelock for many years. Bookieland Limited purchased the business and employed Ms Alpar from September 2022 as a chef. The restaurant closed for about three months every winter.

Bookieland issued fixed term employment agreements, but they were not signed. Ms Alpar said she asked for amendments (including that her role was full time permanent rather than fixed term). In submissions, Bookieland ultimately accepted the unsigned agreements did not meet the statutory requirements in s 66 and could not be relied on.

How the employment ended

The parties disagreed about whether employment ended by mutual agreement in May 2024 (before Ms Alpar travelled overseas), or whether she remained employed and was dismissed in August 2024 after she asked when work would restart. Bookieland argued it told Ms Alpar she would not be re-engaged for a third season because the business was being marketed for sale, and on that basis her later personal grievance was out of time.

The Authority did not accept there was a mutual agreement to end employment in May 2024. It found Ms Alpar could reasonably expect ongoing employment after the winter shutdown, as had occurred previously. It also found the employer's conduct (either not responding to the WhatsApp enquiry, or responding in a way indicating she was not required) amounted to termination at the employer's initiative. The Authority found Ms Alpar was dismissed on or about 12 August 2024.

Ms Alpar's personal grievance was raised on 21 August 2024, within the 90 day time limit in s 114.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The Authority applied s 103A (what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time). Because Bookieland proceeded on an incorrect fixed term premise and did not follow a dismissal process (investigation, raising concerns, and giving a meaningful opportunity to respond), it could not justify the dismissal. The dismissal was found unjustified.

Remedies

Compensation

The Authority accepted the sudden ending of employment and the financial consequences caused Ms Alpar injury to feelings. Taking account of the evidence (including health practitioner letters and other life stressors noted in the determination) and comparator case law (including Richora Group Ltd v Cheng), the Authority fixed compensation at $12,000.

Lost wages

Ms Alpar sought three months lost wages. The Authority accepted reimbursement was appropriate, but moderated the period. It noted Ms Alpar took steps to find work and ultimately established a new business by mid-December 2024. The Authority awarded the equivalent of two months lost wages: $14,000.

Annual holiday arrears

The Authority also ordered annual holiday arrears. The issue was that annual holiday pay calculations appeared not to include a cash component of weekly payments. If the parties cannot agree the calculation, they were given leave to return to the Authority.

Contribution and costs

The Authority found Ms Alpar did not contribute to the situation. Costs were reserved, with a memorandum timetable set if costs could not be agreed.

Orders summary

  • Compensation: $12,000.00
  • Reimbursement of lost wages: $14,000.00
  • Annual holiday arrears: payable (amount to be calculated/agreed)
  • Costs: reserved

Practical takeaways

  • Fixed term requirements are strict: if a fixed term does not comply with s 66 (including clarity on genuine reasons and proper agreement), it cannot be relied on to end employment.
  • Seasonal shutdown does not automatically end employment: an employer still needs clarity and agreement if employment is to end at the start of a shutdown period.
  • Messages can amount to dismissal: "no need to come back" type responses on messaging apps can be treated as termination at the employer's initiative.
  • Holiday calculations must include all pay: where wages include cash components, leave/holiday calculations must generally include those amounts.
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
ZiGen Wong v NZAT Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 193 - employee status found despite no visa; $18,187.50 wage arrears + $1,455 holiday pay; constructive dismissal upheld

A labourer worked regular 7am-5pm hours at $25/hour but was not paid for 17 weeks. The employer denied knowing him and did not participate. Applying s 6 and the Bryson control/integration/economic reality tests, the ERA found he was a permanent employee, calculated wage arrears at $18,187.50...

Gaetan Duvaux v Mega Limited [2026] NZERA 182 - redundancy dismissal unjustified on process; pre-selection and withheld scoring; $8,000 compensation plus three months' pay ordered

A senior web developer was made redundant in a large technology department restructure. The ERA accepted the commercial drivers, but found a material process defect: Mega applied the selection criteria before consultation, did not provide the employee's scores, and did not let him meaningfully...

Craig (Andrew) Campbell v Qube Ports NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 174 - interim reinstatement ordered after medical incapacity dismissal; asthma/dust exposure dispute

A Port of Tauranga stevedore was dismissed for medical incapacity after an asthma flare during palm kernel bulk work. The ERA held there was a serious question to be tried about whether the employer overstated the dust risk and failed to consider modified duties, and it ordered interim...

Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Interim reinstatement decision. A field operations manager with 16 years service was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct after an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report. The ERA found a serious question to be tried on unjustified dismissal (including a mismatch between...

Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

A retail assistant was dismissed by WhatsApp during a probation period after the employer relied on KPI metrics from CCTV and 'performance reports' but never raised concerns in writing or held any disciplinary meeting. The ERA held the employer ignored its own staged warning policy and the s...

Browse topics