UERATA v EXPERT MOVING GROUP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 34

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.

In summary, On the morning of the investigation meeting scheduled for 21 December 2023, it became apparent that Mr Uerata would be unable to attend the meeting. After that, A further CMC was then held on 30 January 2024, at which a new investigation meeting date was set for March 2024. Later, The directions of the Authority dated 22 March 2024 note that Expert Moving could provide comment about the directions, including as to the new investigation meeting date, by contacting the Authority Officer using the contact details set out in the accompanying letter. The determination records that On the morning of the investigation meeting on 10 May 2024, Expert Moving had not arrived at the premises by the scheduled start time. The Authority notes that The Authority then advised the parties by email that the investigation meeting was proceeding that day, and again provided the address details for the venue. Ultimately, The Authority's email also set out that if Expert Moving fails to attend, or fails to provide any valid reason why the matter should be adjourned, the investigation meeting would proceed at 11.00 am, regardless of whether Expert Moving chose to participate. In the end, As a result of information provided to the Authority by Mr Uerata, a further investigation meeting was held (by telephone) on 8 August 2024.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are UERATA (employee) and EXPERT MOVING GROUP LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 10 May 2024, 8 August 2024, and 5 November 2024 (by telephone) (3 days).
• Authority member: Jeremy Lynch.

Key events described

• On the morning of the investigation meeting scheduled for 21 December 2023, it became apparent that Mr Uerata would be unable to attend the meeting.
• A further CMC was then held on 30 January 2024, at which a new investigation meeting date was set for March 2024.
• The directions of the Authority dated 22 March 2024 note that Expert Moving could provide comment about the directions, including as to the new investigation meeting date, by contacting the Authority Officer using the contact details set out in the accompanying letter.
• On the morning of the investigation meeting on 10 May 2024, Expert Moving had not arrived at the premises by the scheduled start time.
• The Authority then advised the parties by email that the investigation meeting was proceeding that day, and again provided the address details for the venue.
• The Authority's email also set out that if Expert Moving fails to attend, or fails to provide any valid reason why the matter should be adjourned, the investigation meeting would proceed at 11.00 am, regardless of whether Expert Moving chose to participate.
• As a result of information provided to the Authority by Mr Uerata, a further investigation meeting was held (by telephone) on 8 August 2024.
• After this information was provided, the Authority convened a third investigation meeting (also held by telephone) on 5 November 2024.
• Mr Uerata's employment was terminated summarily by Expert Moving's email of 18 November 2022.
• To try and establish what these payments related to, an investigation meeting was held by telephone on 8 August 2024.
• A second telephone investigation meeting was held on 5 November 2024.
• The Authority was satisfied that Mr Uerata was working an average of 26 hours per week at the time of his dismissal, and that this is the appropriate basis for an assessment of his lost wages.

Decision markers

• Expert Moving's failure to meet any of the minimum procedural fairness tests in s 103A(3) of the Act, or comply with the obligations under s 4(1A)(c) of the Act renders Mr Uerata's dismissal both procedurally and substantively unjustifiable.
• Mr Uerata has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
• The Authority was satisfied that Mr Uerata was working an average of 26 hours per week at the time of his dismissal, and that this is the appropriate basis for an assessment of his lost wages.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $15,000.00
• Lost wages / arrears: $300.00, $24.00, $2,100.00
• Penalty: $3,000.00
• 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

• 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.