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
Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was employed by Keene Construction Limited as an apprentice builder. After he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment, the company director texted that there was not going to be a company anymore and told him not to bother coming into work. The ERA found it was reasonable for Mr Sun to understand that he had been dismissed. Keene Construction provided no evidence, filed no reply, did not attend the investigation meeting, and did not justify the dismissal. The Authority awarded lost wages, compensation, wage and holiday pay arrears, and costs...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Blue Hunt v Lance Wakelin [2026] NZERA 463 - farm assistant unjustifiably dismissed after cowshed dispute

Blue Hunt worked as a full-time farm assistant for Lance Wakelin. After a heated cowshed exchange, Mr Wakelin later texted that "the ship has sailed", that Mr Hunt's employment was over, and that he had two weeks to move out. The ERA found Mr Hunt was unjustifiably dismissed because no fair process was followed. The Authority also found minimum wage underpayment, unlawful accommodation deductions, no complete wage and time records, and employment-standards breaches. Mr Hunt was awarded compensation, lost wages, wage arrears, holiday pay, reimbursement of excessive lodging deductions, interest, and part of a penalty...

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...

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...

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...

Browse topics