UDUMULLAGA v HOPKINS JOINERY LIMITED [2025] NZERA 270
This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.
At a glance
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 270
- Registry: Wellington
- Parties: UDUMULLAGA v HOPKINS JOINERY LIMITED
- Authority member: Claire English
- Hearing date: 15 October and 29 November 2024 by AVL (2 days)
- Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).
Story in plain English
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).
In summary, However, she was presented with an unsigned letter of resignation which had been prepared by Hopkins and dated 8 November 2023. After that, Hopkins takes the position that Ms Udumullaga was made redundant and her dismissal was justifiable. Later, Hopkins sufficiently investigated the circumstances before taking action to dismiss Ms Udumullaga; b. The determination records that Ms Udumullaga was then asked to sign a resignation letter drafted by Ms Martin, and the meeting ended with Mr Hopkins asking her to provide a medical certificate. The Authority notes that I prefer Hopkins' own contemporaneous records, being the meeting notes of 22 November 2023, and the termination letter of 27 November 2023, which record that her job had previously been disestablished, such that there was effectively no position for her to return to. Ultimately, Ms Udumullaga seeks reimbursement of unpaid wages from 16 November 2023 when Ms Udumullaga says she was ready and willing to work as supported by her medical certificates, but was told by Hopkins not to attend work, through to the date she received the dismissal letter on 28 November 2023. In the end, A penalty of $3,000 being a failure to pay wages when due for the period 16 November to her dismissal on 28 November 2023.
Key case markers
- This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
- The parties are UDUMULLAGA (employee) and HOPKINS JOINERY LIMITED (employer).
- Hearing date noted: 15 October and 29 November 2024 by AVL (2 days).
- Authority member: Claire English.
Key events described
- However, she was presented with an unsigned letter of resignation which had been prepared by Hopkins and dated 8 November 2023.
- Hopkins takes the position that Ms Udumullaga was made redundant and her dismissal was justifiable.
- Hopkins sufficiently investigated the circumstances before taking action to dismiss Ms Udumullaga; b.
- Ms Udumullaga was then asked to sign a resignation letter drafted by Ms Martin, and the meeting ended with Mr Hopkins asking her to provide a medical certificate.
- I prefer Hopkins' own contemporaneous records, being the meeting notes of 22 November 2023, and the termination letter of 27 November 2023, which record that her job had previously been disestablished, such that there was effectively no position for her to return to.
- Ms Udumullaga seeks reimbursement of unpaid wages from 16 November 2023 when Ms Udumullaga says she was ready and willing to work as supported by her medical certificates, but was told by Hopkins not to attend work, through to the date she received the dismissal letter on 28 November 2023.
- A penalty of $3,000 being a failure to pay wages when due for the period 16 November to her dismissal on 28 November 2023.
- It is submitted that this occurred due to (quoted wording omitted), and that these factors indicate a predetermined approach to dismissal.
- Reference is further made to the attempt to get Ms Udumullaga to sign a pre- written letter of resignation at the meeting on 9 May, which is said to be inconsistent wit h employer obligations to act in a way that tends to maintain the employment relationship.
Decision markers
(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)
Orders and payments mentioned
- Compensation: $25,000
- Holiday pay: $1,103.48
- Penalty: $71.55, $6,000, $3,000
- 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.
- Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
- 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.
