Resolving Employment Relationship Problems: Insights from My Experience Representing Clients at the ERA

Workplace disputes are rarely clear cut. Whether you are a business owner attempting to protect your commercial operations or an employee seeking fairness, navigating the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) can feel like walking a legal tightrope.

When a professional relationship breaks down, the path forward relies heavily on understanding statutory thresholds, strict procedural definitions, and the absolute finality of formal agreements. Looking closely at real cases shows exactly how the ERA interprets the law in everyday practice and underscores why robust, balanced advocacy is vital for both sides.

If you are currently facing a workplace issue or searching for guidance via Maryline Suchley ERA, here is a comprehensive breakdown of relevant case outcomes, divided by critical legal themes.

1. Structural Changes, Redundancy, and the Bounds of Good Faith

Restructuring a business is a legitimate management right, but the ERA holds a microscope to how those changes are carried out. Hidden motives or cut corners will quickly turn a structural change into a legal liability.

Peter Callen v Alaron Products Limited

• The Case: A qualified tradesman raised a disadvantage grievance regarding workplace isolation and bullying by his immediate manager. Shortly after, the company introduced a restructure that disestablished his position. He was not selected for a remaining support role and was barred from applying for new engineering vacancies due to a strict, newly introduced ten year experience requirement.  

• The Preliminary Stage ([2024] NZERA 610): The employer argued the dismissal claim was filed late. However, the Authority ruled that because the employer filed a substantive Statement in Reply to the initial application without actively pleading a jurisdiction objection, they had impliedly consented to the late filing.  

• The Outcome ([2025] NZERA 165): The ERA ruled that while the restructure had an objective commercial basis, the selection process was compromised by an ulterior motive to manage out a strained managerial relationship. Furthermore, the employer failed its positive duty under good faith obligations to properly explore redeployment. The employer was ordered to pay $14,820.00 gross lost wages and $20,000.00 in compensation.  

Amanda Piacun v Cooper No 1 Limited & Deon Cooper

• The Case: An employee of seven years had been away from the workplace for two years following a severe non-workplace injury, during which the business allowed her the continuous use of a company car and laptop. When the business was sold, she was immediately terminated without notice. The company argued the purchaser simply chose not to hire her under the individual agreement's Employee Protection Provision (EPP).  

• The Outcome ([2025] NZERA 32 & [2025] NZERA 58): Internal records brought to light during the investigation revealed the employer’s Head of Finance had specifically requested the purchaser remove her name from the transfer list, stating she was "made redundant from our end" due to her ACC status. The ERA held that the employer breached its explicit duty to use "best endeavours" to negotiate a transfer. Because no standard medical incapacity or redundancy process was followed, the dismissal was ruled completely unjustified. Cooper No 1 Limited was ordered to pay $18,000.00 in compensation and $4,571.55 in combined costs and filing fees. Personal claims against the director were dismissed.  

Stefan Bendall v Precut Construction Limited

• The Case ([2023] NZERA 448): A construction estimator resigned following what he described as ongoing aggressive, overbearing conduct from the company's sole director. After a conversation with his wife regarding their mortgage, he immediately requested to retract his resignation later that same day. The employer declined the retraction, stating the resignation stood.  

• The Outcome: The ERA confirmed that the employee’s written resignation was explicit and unequivocal, meaning the employer was not legally forced to accept a retraction. However, looking at the baseline environment, the Authority found that the director's pattern of yelling and standing over the employee breached the implied duty of trust and confidence. This cumulative behaviour amounted to an unjustified constructive dismissal. The company was ordered to pay $23,000.00 in compensation, $9,070.00 in loss of earnings, and training fee reimbursements.  

2. Technical Definitions: When is a Worker Legally "Casual"?

Mislabelling an employment arrangement is one of the most common pitfalls in New Zealand employment law. The ERA looks entirely at the reality of the working relationship rather than just the title on a contract.

Michael Spicer v Allied Security Limited

• The Case ([2022] NZERA 17): A university student signed a casual individual agreement to work seasonal street patrols. When COVID-19 restrictions canceled the patrols, he sought alternative supermarket shifts but attached strict personal conditions, such as requiring a company vehicle lift. When matching shifts couldn't be accommodated, he claimed unjustified dismissal and advantage grievances over a lack of winter gear and unpaid training.  

• The Outcome: The claims were dismissed. The ERA determined that the true nature of the relationship was strictly casual, with no mutual ongoing obligations existing between shift engagements. A casual worker cannot be "dismissed" from shifts that were never formally offered or accepted. The training claim failed because the worker had signed an advance text agreement explicitly accepting that the purely observational shifts would be unpaid.  

3. Workplace Safety, Bullying Claims, and Process Vulnerabilities

Employers have an absolute statutory duty to provide a safe working environment. However, if an employee alleges bullying, both sides are entitled to an unbiased, objective investigation.

Kelly Drake v Maniototo Health Services Limited (formerly t/a ETE)

• The Case: A healthcare assistant asserted she faced ongoing relational bullying from three colleagues and filed a formal complaint. She also challenged the employer’s refusal to grant open ended paid special leave while she remained away from the workplace.  

• The Substantive Outcome ([2024] NZERA 582): The ERA found that the employer responded promptly and conducted an impartial investigation in line with its internal policies, and appropriately utilised standard leave balances rather than uncontracted special leave. However, the employer failed its safety duties during a critical five-week preliminary window. By requiring the employee to continue working directly alongside the specific colleague she explicitly feared without staging rostered accommodations, the employer caused an unjustified disadvantage. The ERA awarded $8,000.00 in compensation.  

• The Costs Outcome ([2024] NZERA 730): The employer sought a reduction based on an early settlement offer ($35,000) that exceeded the final award. The Authority ruled that because the early offer required the employee to resign without addressing a safety return-to-work plan, it was rejected for a proper reason and could not displace costs. The employer was ordered to pay $4,000.00 in costs.  

Dharamjeet Singh v Majestywoods Limited & Majesty Care NZ Limited

• The Case: A migrant worker was recruited from India on an Accredited Employer Work Visa to work as a woodworker but was instead deployed to perform store cleaning and sales assistant tasks. He claimed he was forced to pay a $33,000 premium for his visa, faced bullying, was denied rest breaks, and was summarily dismissed via email following a written performance warning.  

• The Substantive Outcome ([2025] NZERA 396): The premium claim was dismissed due to an total absence of corroborating transactional records. However, the written warning and subsequent summary dismissal were ruled completely unjustified. The employer failed to conduct any formal disciplinary meetings, provide details of customer complaints, or allow a reasonable opportunity to respond. The ERA ordered the employers to pay $21,000.00 in compensation, $11,076.96 for lost remuneration, and $4,079.00 in gross wage arrears.  

• The Costs Outcome ([2025] NZERA 420 & [2025] NZERA 420_2): Following the substantive victory, the employers entered liquidation and failed to submit cost arguments. The Authority applied the daily tariff framework, ordering the companies to pay an additional $3,000.00 in legal cost contributions.  

Abigail Atkins v Alpine 182 Degrees Limited

• The Case: A trainee cook at a local hotel asserted that she faced escalating verbal abuse, shouting, and demeaning language from the company director. Following a vague meeting where she was accused of spreading negative rumours and an unverified allegation of food poisoning, she was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.  

• The Substantive & Costs Outcomes ([2023] NZERA 334 & [2023] NZERA 520): The employer failed to attend the investigation meeting. The ERA ruled the dismissal completely unjustified, finding that the director's conduct breached the implied obligation to provide a safe workplace. The Authority ordered $1,280.00 lost wages, $25,000.00 in compensation, $1,120.00 in annual leave arrears, $2,817.00 in wage shortfalls, and a subsequent $4,500.00 costs award.  

• The Enforcement Outcome ([2024] NZERA 40): When the employer refused to engage with debt collection agencies or pay the awards, a formal compliance order was issued under s 137, legally mandating the payment of the $34,717.00 total outstanding debt plus ongoing interest and additional enforcement costs.  

Tracy Tahuhu v Alpine 182 Degrees Limited trading as The Springfield Hotel

• The Case ([2022] NZERA 620): A front-of-house manager raised a personal grievance regarding severe verbal abuse and unstable outbursts from the hotel owner. The immediate consequence of her advocate filing the grievance was that she was locked out of the online payroll system, asked to return her keys, and had an arbitrary deduction made from her final pay for a manager's license fee.  

• The Outcome: The employer did not file a defence or attend the meeting. The ERA found the dismissal to be a retaliatory, completely unjustified sending away that breached fair process. The deduction violated the Wages Protection Act 1983. The hotel was ordered to pay $18,000.00 in compensation, $316.25 for the unlawful deduction, $2,734.86 in minimum wage arrears, $1,800.00 in lost wages, and $3,571.56 in costs and fees.  

Nevins Sandanam v ADT Security Limited

• The Case ([2021] NZERA 292): An employee resigned in May 2017 and subsequently raised a personal grievance for constructive dismissal, asserting he was forced out due to unaddressed workplace bullying and manager pressure surrounding changes to a discretionary commission scheme.  

• The Outcome: The claim was dismissed. The ERA established that the manager's emails regarding the commission plan were a reasonable follow-up given an upcoming holiday closure, rather than intimidation. Furthermore, the employer had responded appropriately to the worker's initial internal complaint by offering an independent investigation, which the employee failed to provide specific details for before resigning.  

4. The Finality of Settlements: Binding Agreements and Legal Estoppel

A signed agreement is designed to bring finality to an employment problem. The ERA treats formal settlements, whether signed by a mediator or privately executed with immense legal weight.

Christine Peters v Marlborough Free Kindergarten Association Incorporated

• The Case: During an internal investigation, an employee and her union representative negotiated a written exit agreement. The document stated it was strictly binding upon execution, regardless of mediator sign-off. The employee subsequently had a change of heart, blocked the mediator from certifying it, and filed grievances in the ERA for disadvantage and dismissal.  

• The Preliminary Outcome ([2024] NZERA 549): The ERA dismissed the claims at a threshold stage. The Authority ruled that accord and satisfaction had been achieved privately. Because the employer had acted on the agreement to its detriment (paying her unworked salary through December), the employee was legally estopped from pursuing the grievances.  

• The Costs Outcome ([2024] NZERA 618): The employer sought an uplift in costs, arguing the claims were doomed to fail. The Authority declined an uplift but ordered the applicant to pay the standard $4,500.00 daily tariff contribution to the employer.  

HZZ v WFW

• The Case ([2024] NZERA 565): The parties entered into a certified section 149 Record of Settlement (ROS). Afterwards, the employer discovered details online regarding the employee’s past involvements in the ERA and unilaterally refused to pay the settlement funds, claiming they no longer wished to be bound.  

• The Outcome: The ERA confirmed that a certified section 149 agreement is ironclad and cannot be canceled due to a subsequent change of mind. The employer was ordered via a compliance order to pay all settlement funds within 14 days, alongside $1,571.55 in costs and filing fees. A permanent non-publication order was granted to protect the parties' identities.  

Clair McConchie v St Albans Community Preschool Incorporated

• The Case: Following an investigation into misconduct allegations, the parties executed a section 149 Record of Settlement containing a standard mutual non-disparagement clause. The employer subsequently filed a factual mandatory report to the Teaching Council detailing the initial allegations. The applicant claimed this report breached the non-disparagement terms.  

• The Substantive Outcome ([2024] NZERA 705): The ERA dismissed the claim, clarifying that a purely factual statement compiled to satisfy a separate statutory reporting obligation does not constitute a disparaging statement under an ROS, provided it avoids subjective character conclusions.  

• The Costs Outcome ([2025] NZERA 90): Because the matter was investigated entirely on the papers, the Authority adjusted the standard daily tariff, ordering the applicant to pay a balanced $2,250.00 cost contribution to the preschool.  

5. Procedural Failures: Rejection of Settlement Offers and Vague Grievances

Strict time limits and precise rules dictate how and when a personal grievance can be raised or how costs are assessed after a win.

Wayne Somerville v Goodman Fielder Limited

• The Case ([2021] NZERA 328): An employee resigned and subsequently sent an email within the 90-day window stating: "I'm writing regarding a personal grievance I am raising... specifically unjustified dismissal, bullying, unjustified disadvantage..." but provided no further details. The employer challenged the jurisdiction of the ERA.  

• The Outcome: The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The ERA reiterated that under section 114(2), simply naming the statutory type of grievance without conveying the underlying facts or substance of the complaint is legally insufficient to notify an employer. Furthermore, general workplace "gripes and grizzles" voiced during employment (such as complaining that co-workers take long breaks) do not constitute raising a legal grievance.  

Shelley Stenhouse v Towman Towing Group Limited

• The Case ([2021] NZERA 10): An employee succeeded in an unjustified disadvantage claim (awarded $10,500.00 and a $1,125.00 penalty for wage record failures) but failed in her dismissal claim. The employer then sought indemnity costs of $41,708.20, arguing the employee acted unreasonably by rejecting an early $15,000 settlement offer.  

• The Outcome: The Authority declined the employer's cost application entirely. The ERA found the employee's rejection of the offer was entirely reasonable because the employer's terms required the sum to be paid in small monthly instalments over an extended 15-month period rather than a lump sum. Costs followed the substantive event, meaning a partially successful self-represented applicant could not be penalized under those conditions.  

Joanne Thomson v Maniototo Health Services Ltd

• The Case ([2021] NZERA 466): An employee’s exit was finalized via a signed section 149 Record of Settlement, which stated she would receive all outstanding holiday pay. She later brought a compliance action in the ERA, claiming she was owed 11 days of accrued annual leave visible on a prior payslip and that a $52.48 deduction from her final pay was unauthorized.  

• The Outcome: The claim was dismissed. The Authority checked the payroll calculations and verified that the 11 days shown on the historic payslip resulted from an automated system calculation error that failed to adjust to a voluntary reduction in her working hours. The final payout was correctly calculated using 8% of her gross earnings under section 25 of the Holidays Act 2003, and the small deduction was a valid reconciliation of an advance leave payment.  

Anton Pearce v Alpine 182 Degrees Limited

• The Case ([2024] NZERA 144): Following a prior, successful substantive determination ordering the employer to pay arrears, unlawful deductions, and penalties, the employer failed to make any payments. The worker sought a formal compliance order.  

• The Outcome: The compliance application was granted. The Authority ordered the employer to pay $5,800.00 net arrears, $1,250.00 in unlawful deductions, interest, KiwiSaver contributions, and $1,250.00 in penalties, alongside $571.55 in enforcement costs. The determination explicitly attached section 140 of the Act to serve notice of the severe legal sanctions available to the Employment Court (including fines or sequestration of assets) if the order is ignored.  

The Takeaway for Employers and Employees

If these 21 determinations reveal anything, it is that workplace law in New Zealand is deeply dependent on process, transparency, and clarity.

• For Employers: Taking care of disciplinary actions, restructures, or medical incapacity requires strict adherence to your contractual policies and a genuine opportunity for employee feedback. Cursory investigations or retaliatory actions can quickly result in costly compensation orders.  

• For Employees: Stating that you are unhappy is not the same as validly raising a personal grievance. If you intend to preserve your legal rights, you must provide the factual substance of your claim within the statutory timeframe and understand that signing an exit agreement brings a permanent end to further litigation.  

  

Having an experienced advocate who understands both sides of the ERA process ensures that your interests are defended accurately, practically, and without unnecessary escalation.