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
Todd Dormer v Rhino-Rack New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 353 - ambiguous commission clause, Sales Commission Scheme, and unjustified disadvantage

Todd Dormer claimed Rhino-Rack owed him commission because his employment agreement said only "10% paid quarterly". He argued that meant 10 percent of sales or gross margin. Rhino-Rack said the company-wide Sales Commission Scheme applied. The ERA found the wording was badly drafted and Rhino-Rack had unjustifiably disadvantaged Mr Dormer by failing to give him clear written details of the scheme, but rejected the claim that he was entitled to 10 percent of gross margin. Rhino-Rack was ordered to pay $14,000 compensation, with costs reserved.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Cameron Keen v Prestige Paving NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 344 - unjustified dismissal after employer stopped providing work and pay

Cameron Keen worked for Prestige Paving NZ Limited as a labourer. After a Christmas closedown, the employer failed to provide work, failed to pay him, placed him on leave without pay without his request, and then stopped communicating. The ERA found Mr Keen was unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably dismissed. Prestige was ordered to pay $12,000 compensation, $19,460.82 unpaid and lost wages, $1,556.86 holiday pay, and $3,000 costs...

Stephen Nunn v Port Nicholson Fisheries LP [2026] NZERA 345 - unjustified dismissal after crayfish compliance investigations

Stephen Nunn was dismissed without notice by Port Nicholson Fisheries LP after two employment investigations in quick succession about seafood compliance, documentation, and handling of live crayfish. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because PNF failed to genuinely consider his explanations, failed to give him key information including CCTV footage, relied on a flawed final written warning, and failed to consider alternatives to dismissal. PNF was ordered to pay $20,000 compensation, three months lost wages, four weeks notice, and public holiday arrears...

Fiona Scott v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [2026] NZERA 342 - casual bus driver found to be permanent and unjustifiably dismissed

Fiona Scott was employed by Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited on a casual agreement, but the ERA found the real nature of the relationship had evolved into permanent employment. After a route deviation for a toilet break, two scheduled shifts were removed and no further shifts were offered. The ERA found this amounted to unjustified dismissal and ordered $10,000 compensation and $12,870 gross lost wages...

Regina Rasheed v Commissioner of Zayed College for Girls [2026] NZERA 326 - school principal reinstated after unjustified dismissal

Regina Rasheed was principal of Zayed College for Girls for about 14 years before being dismissed by the Commissioner in June 2025. The ERA found unjustified disadvantage, unjustified suspension, unjustified dismissal, breaches of the collective agreement and good faith, and ordered reinstatement, lost wages, 23 days sick leave reimbursement, $40,000 compensation, and a Trust penalty...

Browse topics