WRW v MCCARTHY ENTREPREISES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 452

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

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

In summary, The letter referred to matters set out by WRW in her resignation letter and several additional matters. After that, WRW gave written notice of her resignation dated 4 February 2023. Later, WRW's 4 February 2023 letter set out her reasons for resigning. The determination records that Dismissal can include situations where a breach of duty by the employer causes the employee to resign and where an employer has followed a course of conduct for the deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing a resignation.3 The evidence does not support the latter type. The Authority notes that WRW produced in evidence a draft resignation letter dated 1 February 2023. Ultimately, the employer submits that WRW intended to resign before receiving Mrs McCarthy's 3 February 2023 email and roster proposal, so those actions could not have caused WRW's resignation. In the end, The Authority found that the proposed changes formed part of the reason for WRW's decision on 4 February 2023 to resign.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Christchurch registry.
• The parties are WRW (employee) and MCCARTHY ENTREPREISES LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 4 and 5 February 2025.
• Authority member: Philip Cheyne.

Key events described (as described by the Authority)

• The letter referred to matters set out by WRW in her resignation letter and several additional matters.
• Rosters indicate the change took effect in the week ending 16 January 2022.
• WRW gave written notice of her resignation dated 4 February 2023.
• By her representative's letter dated 10 February 2023, WRW raised personal grievances.2 the employer's solicitor replied on 17 March 2023.
• A substantive response was provided, but consent to raise grievances out of time was expressly declined. 2 Only an undated copy was produced in evidence, but the reply correspondence from the employer's lawyer refers to the letter as dated 10 February 2023.
• WRW's 4 February 2023 letter set out her reasons for resigning.
• Dismissal can include situations where a breach of duty by the employer causes the employee to resign and where an employer has followed a course of conduct for the deliberate and dominant purpose of coercing a resignation.3 The evidence does not support the latter type.
• The manager also reduced her rostered hours for the week starting 12 December 2022, justifying that by referring to the injury.
• WRW produced in evidence a draft resignation letter dated 1 February 2023.
• the employer submits that WRW intended to resign before receiving Mrs McCarthy's 3 February 2023 email and roster proposal, so those actions could not have caused WRW's resignation.
• The Authority found that the proposed changes formed part of the reason for WRW's decision on 4 February 2023 to resign.
• The Authority found that WRW was constructively dismissed by the employer.
• There is a claim for compensation of $35,000.00 for the unjustified dismissal and additional compensation for an unjustified disadvantage personal grievance.
• What remains is a description by WRW, supported by her partner, of distress and harm that sits within the lower range of harm typically experienced by an employee who has been unjustifiably dismissed. The Authority fixed $20,000.00 as appropriate compensation.

Decision markers (as described by the Authority)

• The Authority was satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order sought.
• The Authority found that the proposed changes formed part of the reason for WRW's decision on 4 February 2023 to resign.
• The Authority found that WRW was constructively dismissed by the employer.
• The Authority found that WRW has shown no proven loss of remuneration attributable to her personal grievance.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation:$20,000.00

Practical takeaways

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.