Wendy Darrell v Canterbury Vehicle [2026] NZERA 35

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

Story in plain English

Wendy Darrell v Canterbury Vehicle is an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. The Authority ordered remedies, including compensation and/or payment of entitlements.

[1] Wendy Darrell was employed by Canterbury Vehicle Compliance Limited (CVC) as an Automotive Technician Assistant from 19 August 2024. Ms Darrell assisted the Vehicle Inspector with compliance inspections by preparing the necessary paperwork and liaising with customers. [2] Shortly after Ms Darrell commenced work with CVC, CVC experienced a downturn in compliance work and became concerned about the lack of work for Ms Darrell and the Vehicle Inspector. [3] As a result, in September 2024 Ms Darrell was sent home from work on two occasions and was then...

The Authority held an investigation meeting on 22 September 2025 in Christchurch.

Key themes recorded include: [40] Then in a follow up email at 10:49 am on 26 September 2024 CVC confirmed its dismissal of Ms Darrell by serving a notice of redundancy that terminated her employment with immediate effect and advised that no redundancy payment would be made. [51] Assessing justification in a redundancy dismissal involves applying s 103A of the Act, the test for justification. Given full consultation she may well have accepted leave without pay or work at the Belfast site , thus avoiding any dismissal.

The orders section in the PDF sets out any payments, timeframes, and compliance steps.

Key events described

• [40] Then in a follow up email at 10:49 am on 26 September 2024 CVC confirmed its dismissal of Ms Darrell by serving a notice of redundancy that terminated her employment with immediate effect and advised that no redundancy payment would be made.
• [51] Assessing justification in a redundancy dismissal involves applying s 103A of the Act, the test for justification.
• Given full consultation she may well have accepted leave without pay or work at the Belfast site , thus avoiding any dismissal.
• There are two aspects to the substantive decision - there was clearly a downturn in work at the Wigram site and alternatives to dismissal for redundancy had been considered and ruled out.
• [4] What followed over three days were exchanges of emails between Ms Darrell and CVC culminating in Ms Darrell's being dismissed; CVC served Ms Darrell with a notice of termination for redundancy with immediate effect on 26 September 2024.
• (d) The dismissal knocked her confidence and self-worth.
• (f) She was embarrassed about her dismissal and felt isolated.
• [84] CVC must pay a penalty of $2,000 to the Crown within 28 days of this determination.
• [48] The key question is whether CVC's actions, including the dismissal of Ms Darrell, were justified.
• The statement of problem set out an employment relationship problem based on: (a) Unjustified dismissal.
• [45] Ms Darrell was dismissed by CVC on 26 September 2024, when it served a notice of redundancy on Ms Darrell.
• [5] Ms Darrell raised personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and unjustified action causing disadvantage.

Decision markers

• [67] Comparing this loss and harm to other cases of unjustified actions and dismissal and the amounts of compensation awarded I quantify Ms Darrell's loss and harm at $27,000.
• [60] Overall CVC's actions were not those that a fair and reasonable employer could do in the circumstances, and therefore its actions, which caused disadvantage to Ms Darrell's employment, were unjustified and its dismissal of Ms Darrell was unjustified.
• [59] For these reasons the decision to dismiss Ms Darrell was not substantively justified.
• The statement of problem set out an employment relationship problem based on: (a) Unjustified dismissal.
• [43] Ms Darrell classifies her personal grievance for unjustified action causing disadvantage as bullying.
• [5] Ms Darrell raised personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and unjustified action causing disadvantage.
• (b) Unjustified action causing disadvantage - Ms Darrell says CVC's actions over the few weeks of her employment amounted to bullying.
• Ms Darrell's personal grievances [41] Ms Darrell has raised two personal grievances: unjustified dismissal and unjustifiable action causing disadvantage to her employment.
• Unjustified action causing disadvantage [42] A personal grievance for unjustified action causing disadvantage to an employee's employment is set out in s 103(1)(b) of the Act.
• [56] Then, in terms of substantive justification for CVC's decision to dismiss Ms Darrell, CVC needs to show its decision to dismiss was what a fair and reasonable employer could come to in the circumstances.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $27,000
• Lost wages / arrears: $15,600
• Penalty: $5,544
• Wage arrears: $2,000

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders wording. Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Redundancy cases usually turn on genuineness, consultation quality, and whether alternatives were properly considered.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
• Always check the orders section: it is the authoritative list of payments, timeframes, and compliance steps.

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.