TYACK v BIG B CARTAGE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 436

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, Mr Sims maintains Mr Tyack resigned in a text message to him of 2 August 2023, after he was asked to start work later that day. After that, However, during the investigation meeting and beforehand at a teleconference the Authority directed Mr Sims to provide the original text exchanges of 2 August 2023 he sought to rely upon but Mr Sims indicated that he was unable to recover the full text exchanges. Later, The ending of the employment relationship [13] While Mr Sims says Mr Tyack (quoted wording omitted) there was a 'twist in the tale'. The determination records that Mr Sims belatedly disclosed after the investigation meeting that ACC had provided him with the employer's version of the medical certificate indicating the nature of the injury and that Mr Tyack would be (quoted wording omitted) from 5 September 2023 until 16 October 2023. The Authority notes that In response by email of the same day at 11:41 am, Mr Tyack's advocate raised a personal grievance alleging Mr Tyack had been unjustifiably dismissed. Ultimately, It was also evident that Mr Tyack had signalled that if Mr Sims proceeded to rely on the purported resignation, he would challenge this as an unjustified dismissal. In the end, This amounted to a summary dismissal on 11 September 2023.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are TYACK (employee) and BIG B CARTAGE LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 9 June 2025 (by Audio Visual Link).
• Authority member: David Beck.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• Mr Sims maintains Mr Tyack resigned in a text message to him of 2 August 2023, after he was asked to start work later that day.
• However, during the investigation meeting and beforehand at a teleconference the Authority directed Mr Sims to provide the original text exchanges of 2 August 2023 he sought to rely upon but Mr Sims indicated that he was unable to recover the full text exchanges.
• The ending of the employment relationship [13] While Mr Sims says Mr Tyack (quoted wording omitted) there was a 'twist in the tale'.
• Mr Sims belatedly disclosed after the investigation meeting that ACC had provided him with the employer's version of the medical certificate indicating the nature of the injury and that Mr Tyack would be (quoted wording omitted) from 5 September 2023 until 16 October 2023.
• In response by email of the same day at 11:41 am, Mr Tyack's advocate raised a personal grievance alleging Mr Tyack had been unjustifiably dismissed.
• It was also evident that Mr Tyack had signalled that if Mr Sims proceeded to rely on the purported resignation, he would challenge this as an unjustified dismissal.
• This amounted to a summary dismissal on 11 September 2023.
• Mr Tyack's advocate has suggested this was a dismissal for medical incapacity, whereas Mr Sims has suggested he was relying upon Mr Tyack's resignation.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• On either ground, The Authority found that Mr Tyack was dismissed - he did not resign.
• The Authority found Mr Tyack's dismissal was unjustified and he is entitled to consideration of remedies.
• Section 123(1)(b) of the Act also provides for the reimbursement of the whole or any part of wages or other money lost by Mr Tyack should The Authority found that he has established a personal grievance.
• Here The Authority found Mr Tyack's lost remuneration was partly attributed to the personal grievance.

Money and remedy references

• Compensation: $6,000.00
• 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

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• 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.