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
Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

A retail assistant was dismissed by WhatsApp during a probation period after the employer relied on KPI metrics from CCTV and 'performance reports' but never raised concerns in writing or held any disciplinary meeting. The ERA held the employer ignored its own staged warning policy and the s...

Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Interim reinstatement decision. A field operations manager with 16 years service was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct after an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report. The ERA found a serious question to be tried on unjustified dismissal (including a mismatch between...

Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial period, wages/entitlements; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Outcome: see the Authority's findings and orders in the embedded determination. At the material time, the first respondent, Dong Construction Limited (Dong Construction), was an Accredited Employer under Immigration New Zealand's (INZ's) Accredited Employer Work Visa Sc...

Rimple Rimple v NZ - Kebabs Limited, Rupinder Kaur Bal, Gursahib Singh Dhillon, and Harpal Bal [2026] NZERA 128 - premium sought for AEWV role; abandonment dismissal unjustified after visa cancellation; $22,620 lost wages, $14,000 compensation, $16,000 penalty plus entitlements

A Rotorua kebab restaurant recruited a kitchen hand from India on an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV). The ERA found the employer (through a director) sought a $34,000 premium to secure the job, breaching s 12A Wages Protection Act, and imposed a $16,000 penalty. The employee was later...

Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Anztec made a senior assembly technician redundant in a small-business restructure. The ERA accepted the redundancy was genuine and the dismissal was substantively justified, but found significant good faith/consultation defects - including failure to proactively disclose information.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

A retail assistant was dismissed during a probation period after the employer said CCTV and KPI reports showed targets were not met. The ERA found the employer had not provided adequate POS and legal process training, yet relied on KPI results, and then terminated employment out of the blue by...

Browse topics