ClickCease

Mr Watson challenged a written warning and later alleged he was constructively dismissed after his relationship with Alchemy Builders deteriorated and he was removed from a workplace WhatsApp group. Timeliness affected the earlier disadvantage grievance.

The short answer

The ERA held the disadvantage claim could not proceed but upheld Watson's unjustified-dismissal grievance because the employer's later actions and process did not meet the justification standard. It awarded $15,000 compensation, with costs reserved.


WATSON v ALCHEMY BUILDERS LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 265

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 265
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: WATSON v ALCHEMY BUILDERS LIMITED and Anor
  • Authority member: Andrew Gane
  • Hearing date: 29 January 2025
  • Determination date: 13 May 2025
  • 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, Second, he alleged he was unjustifiably dismissed on 21 December 2023. After that, On 1 December 2023 Mr Watson's representative sent a personal grievance letter to ABL alleging unjustified disadvantage caused by the written warning ABL had issued him on 22 August 2023. Later, He stated that ABL was now on notice of a personal grievance for constructive dismissal if such a breach was not rectified, [22] On 16 December 2023 Mr Watson noticed that he had been removed from the ABL WhatsApp platform. The determination records that On Thursday 21 December 2023 Mr Watson's representative e-mailed ABL's representative raising a second personal grievance claim for Mr Watson's constructive dismissal. The Authority notes that On 22 August 2023 Mr McKelvie emailed Mr Watson a written warning. Ultimately, On 1 December 2023 Mr Watson's representative sent a personal grievance letter respect of the unjustified disadvantage caused by the written warning issued to Mr McKelvie on 22 August 2023. In the end, Because of these various failures, it follows the dismissal was unjustified.7 [47] The Authority found Mr Watson's personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal succeeds.8 6 Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 [65]. 7 Employment Relations Act , s 103A.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are WATSON (employee) and ALCHEMY BUILDERS LIMITED and Anor (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 29 January 2025.
  • Authority member: Andrew Gane.

Key events described

  • Second, he alleged he was unjustifiably dismissed on 21 December 2023.
  • On 1 December 2023 Mr Watson's representative sent a personal grievance letter to ABL alleging unjustified disadvantage caused by the written warning ABL had issued him on 22 August 2023.
  • He stated that ABL was now on notice of a personal grievance for constructive dismissal if such a breach was not rectified, [22] On 16 December 2023 Mr Watson noticed that he had been removed from the ABL WhatsApp platform.
  • On Thursday 21 December 2023 Mr Watson's representative e-mailed ABL's representative raising a second personal grievance claim for Mr Watson's constructive dismissal.
  • On 22 August 2023 Mr McKelvie emailed Mr Watson a written warning.
  • On 1 December 2023 Mr Watson's representative sent a personal grievance letter respect of the unjustified disadvantage caused by the written warning issued to Mr McKelvie on 22 August 2023.
  • Mr Watson is entitled to 3 months' pay totalling $19,230.64. (gross) Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings [51] Mr Watson gave evidence about the effects on him of ABL's decision to dismiss him and the process leading up to that decision.

Decision markers

  • The Authority found Mr Watson's personal grievance claim for unjustified disadvantage cannot proceed. 3 Employment Relations Act, s 114(7).
  • Because of these various failures, it follows the dismissal was unjustified.7 [47] The Authority found Mr Watson's personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal succeeds.8 6 Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 [65]. 7 Employment Relations Act , s 103A.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $15,000
  • 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.

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
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics