ClickCease

Expert Moving dismissed Mr Uerata without meeting the minimum procedural requirements in s 103A or its good-faith consultation obligations. The dispute also involved unpaid amounts and the hours he had been working before termination.

The short answer

The ERA held the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unjustified. It awarded $15,000 compensation and lost-wage/arrears amounts, imposed a $3,000 penalty, and reserved costs.


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.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 34
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: UERATA v EXPERT MOVING GROUP LIMITED
  • Authority member: Jeremy Lynch
  • Hearing date: 10 May 2024, 8 August 2024, and 5 November 2024 (by telephone) (3 days)
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

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.

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.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. 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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics