ClickCease

Tracy Alpar worked for Bookieland under an unsigned seasonal fixed-term arrangement and was later told through WhatsApp that her employment had ended. The ERA had to decide whether the purported fixed term complied with the statutory requirements and whether the termination was justified.

The short answer

The ERA held the seasonal fixed term was not enforceable and the WhatsApp termination was unjustified. Ms Alpar was awarded $12,000 compensation and $14,000 reimbursement of lost remuneration.


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 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