ClickCease

WATSON v ALCHEMY BUILDERS LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 265 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Second, he alleged he was unjustifiably dismissed on 21 December 2023.


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.
  • 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.
  • 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 articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation Limited told an automotive technician his employment was ending because it would not renew what it said was a one-year contract. The ERA found the agreement was permanent, the dismissal process was non-existent, and the employer's later allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft were not substantiated...

Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...

Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

After a customer incident captured on CCTV, the employer emailed that the matter was serious misconduct and 'will result in instant dismissal effective from 4 June'. The ERA held that was an unequivocal sending away: the worker was dismissed without any fair process and did not abandon...

Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

A sales manager was put on 'special leave' while four bullying/harassment complaints were being investigated, but his phone and laptop were taken and he was removed from the workplace without prior consultation. Five days later he was dismissed for serious misconduct without being given the...

Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

A general manager resigned after months of dispute about a short term incentive (STI) clause. He believed he was entitled to 25% of salary, paid quarterly, and that KPIs had to be issued by 1 April. The ERA rejected the constructive dismissal claim because the STI was discretionary and annual,...

Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

A lead developer on a high-pressure KFC app project posted about exhaustion on Instagram and sent blunt messages to a junior developer. FutureCo treated this as serious misconduct and dismissed him. The ERA held the dismissal unjustified, found excessive hours were an unjustified disadvantage,...

Browse topics