TRAIL v VEOLIA WATER SERVICES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 353

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, One set of allegations arises from complaints made by Mr Trail's line manager - these complaints form part of the evidence for the investigation of this employment relationship problem. After that, In these circumstances The Authority was satisfied that publishing each complainants' identity in relation to their complaints could lead to adverse impacts for them. Later, Veolia dealt with these complaints through disciplinary action with Mr Trail and he was given a written warning for the first outburst with Mr Rozitis and then subsequently dismissed for the further outbursts with NSB. The determination records that The Authority's investigation [10] I investigated this employment relationship problem by receiving written evidence and documents, and by holding an investigation meeting on 11 March 2025. The Authority notes that In this case it is accepted that Mr Trail was dismissed by Veolia - Veolia gave Mr Trail notice of termination on 7 September 2023, after completing a disciplinary process. Ultimately, Mr Rozitis scheduled a meeting with Mr Trail for 25 August 2023, to discuss the request to withdraw the warning and to raise the complaints made by NSB. In the end, In the meeting they advised him they would not review the warning, that complaints had been received from NSB regarding his behaviour, and he was stood down on full pay whilst they investigated NSB's complaints.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are TRAIL (employee) and VEOLIA WATER SERVICES LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 11 March 2025.
• Authority member: Peter van Keulen.

Key events described

• One set of allegations arises from complaints made by Mr Trail's line manager - these complaints form part of the evidence for the investigation of this employment relationship problem.
• In these circumstances The Authority was satisfied that publishing each complainants' identity in relation to their complaints could lead to adverse impacts for them.
• Veolia dealt with these complaints through disciplinary action with Mr Trail and he was given a written warning for the first outburst with Mr Rozitis and then subsequently dismissed for the further outbursts with NSB.
• The Authority's investigation [10] I investigated this employment relationship problem by receiving written evidence and documents, and by holding an investigation meeting on 11 March 2025.
• In this case it is accepted that Mr Trail was dismissed by Veolia - Veolia gave Mr Trail notice of termination on 7 September 2023, after completing a disciplinary process.
• Mr Rozitis scheduled a meeting with Mr Trail for 25 August 2023, to discuss the request to withdraw the warning and to raise the complaints made by NSB.
• In the meeting they advised him they would not review the warning, that complaints had been received from NSB regarding his behaviour, and he was stood down on full pay whilst they investigated NSB's complaints.
• Following the 25 August 2023 meeting Ms Fuiono sent Mr Trail an email summarizing the meeting and inviting him to respond to NSB's complaints.
• After the 6 September 2023 meeting Mr Rozitis and Mr Neru discussed the outcome of the disciplinary process and on 7 September 2023 issued a notice of dismissal to Mr Trail.
• The written warning given to Mr Trail [53] Before I turn to consider Veolia's compliance with the procedural steps for Mr Trail's dismissal, I will deal with the written warning given to Mr Trail on 11 July 2023.
• Therefore, The Authority was satisfied that Veolia's decision to dismiss Mr Trail was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could have come to in all of the circumstances.
• Conclusion on unjustifiable dismissal [76] The Authority concluded that Veolia unjustifiably dismissed Mr Trail.

Decision markers

• Therefore, The Authority was satisfied that Veolia's decision to dismiss Mr Trail was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could have come to in all of the circumstances.
• Conclusion on unjustifiable dismissal [76] The Authority concluded that Veolia unjustifiably dismissed Mr Trail.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Costs: Costs reserved.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.