Cases of Interest: July 2025

Tillmans Fine Furniture Ltd v Rookes [2025] NZEmpC 152

Employment Court – Unjustified dismissal – Fixed-term employment – Employment Relations Act 2000, section 66(2)(a)

At issue was whether the employee was unjustifiably dismissed due to the employer’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements for a fixed-term employment agreement.

The employee was initially employed in a permanent sales consultant role, subject to a 90-day trial period. The employer ended her employment under the 90-day trial due to concerns about her product knowledge. Shortly after, the employer re-engaged her on a fixed-term agreement for two months, so as to help her financially over the holiday period and allow her time to find another job. The employee’s employment ended at the end of the fixed term.

The employee claimed she was unjustifiably dismissed. She argued the fixed-term agreement was used to avoid the obligations of permanent employment and to limit liability. She said the employer had no operational need for a temporary role and re-employed her only to avoid a personal grievance.

The employer claimed the fixed-term agreement was genuine and based on reasonable grounds. It argued that the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) should have accepted the sincerity of its intent and not gone further. The employer also submitted that the existence of an ongoing role should not invalidate the fixed-term agreement.

The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed, as the fixed-term agreement did not satisfy Employment Relations Act 2000, section 66(2)(a)(external link). The employer challenged this finding in the Employment Court (the Court).

The Court dismissed the challenge (see paragraph 51). It took into account that:

• The test under section 66(2)(a) is objective and requires genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds, not merely sincerity (see paragraphs 32–33).
• The employer’s reasons were not sufficient to satisfy section 66(2)(a), as the fixed-term agreement was used to avoid dealing with performance issues and to limit liability (see paragraphs 43–44).
• The employer’s actions deprived the employee of rights under the Act, which is excluded from being a genuine reason by section 66(3) (see paragraphs 44).
• The Authority did not err in law or misapply the evidence (see paragraph 48).

Tillmans Fine Furniture Ltd v Rookes [2025] NZEmpC 152(external link)

Tighe-Umbers v Jetconnect Ltd [2025] NZEmpC 136

Employment Court – Unjustified dismissal – Failure to have COVID-19 vaccination – Employment Relations Act 2000, schedule 3A – Consideration of alternatives to dismissal

At issue was:

• Whether the employee was unjustifiably dismissed for failing to comply a vaccination order.
• Whether the employer failed to exhaust all reasonable alternatives to dismissal as required under schedule 3A of the Employment Relations Act 2000(external link) (the Act).

The employee was a senior pilot. The  COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021(external link) required pilots to be vaccinated. The employee declined to be vaccinated, citing medical concerns. He proposed taking short-term leave without pay (LWOP) as an alternative to dismissal. The employer refused, citing resourcing constraints.

The employee challenged the dismissal. He claimed the employer failed to exhaust all reasonable alternatives before terminating employment, contrary to schedule 3A clause 3(4) of the Act.

The Court found the dismissal was unjustified (see paragraph 63). It took into account that:

• Schedule 3A did not impose a more stringent test than section 103A of the Act(external link), but made the obligation to consider reasonable alternatives to dismissal explicit (see paragraph 43).
• The employer failed to exhaust all reasonable alternatives to dismissal, particularly by not offering LWOP despite knowing the employee was open to it (see paragraphs 54–63).
• The dismissal was unjustified as no fair and reasonable employer could have refused LWOP in the circumstances (see paragraph 63).

The Court reserved the issue of remedies, including reinstatement (see paragraphs 65–66).

Tighe-Umbers v Jetconnect Ltd [2025] NZEmpC 136(external link)

New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Inc v Jetstar Airways Ltd [2025] NZERA 463

Employment Relations Authority – Public holiday entitlements – Entitlement to alternative holiday when on standby

At issue was whether pilots were entitled to an alternative holiday under the Holidays Act 2003(external link) and the collective agreement when they were on standby during a public holiday but not called to work.

The union represented pilots employed by the employer. The employer’s rostering system included standby days, during which pilots were required to be contactable and ready to report for duty within two hours if called. The union claimed that the restrictions imposed on standby pilots during public holidays—such as limitations on alcohol, travel, and personal activities—meant they did not enjoy a full holiday and were therefore entitled to an alternative holiday under the Holidays Act 2003, section 59(3)(external link).

The employer denied breaching the collective agreement or the Holidays Act. It argued that pilots on standby who were not called to work did not meet the statutory threshold for receiving an alternative holiday. The employer submitted that the restrictions were inherent to standby duty and not significantly onerous.

The Authority found:

• The restrictions imposed on standby pilots were not sufficient to conclude they did not enjoy a full public holiday (see paragraph 30).
• Pilots rostered on standby during a public holiday are not entitled to an alternative holiday unless they are called to duty (see paragraph 31).
• The employer did not breach the collective agreement or the Holidays Act (see paragraph 31).
• As the matter concerned a dispute over the interpretation of a collective agreement, costs would lie where they fell (see paragraphs 32–33).

New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Inc v Jetstar Airways Ltd [2025] NZERA 463(external link)

Jiang v Trusted Touch Therapy Ltd (in liq) [2025] NZERA 385

Employment Relations Authority – Personal grievance – Unjustified dismissal

Employment Relations Authority – Migrant employee – Wage arrears – Holiday pay

At issue was:

• Whether the employer unjustifiably dismissed the employee.
• Whether the employer breached minimum employment standards by:

• • not providing rest and meal breaks
  • not paying wages and holiday entitlements in full.
• Whether the employer should pay:
  •  penalties
  • compensation
  • wage and holiday pay arrears.
• Whether individuals involved in the breaches should be liable for the wage and holiday pay arrears.

The employee was employed as a massage therapist after relocating from China on a work visa that was tied to the employer. She worked regular hours from September 2023 to January 2024 but was paid inconsistently, initially in cash and later by direct credit. In November 2023, she was pressured into signing a casual employment agreement. The employer then dismissed the employee in January 2024 after she raised concerns about her pay and about ending a flat-sharing arrangement with the business manager.

The employer claimed the employee resigned and was paid appropriately. It also argued that the casual agreement governed her employment and that she was dismissed for misconduct.

The Authority found that the employee was unjustifiably dismissed after raising concerns about her pay and housing and had not resigned (see paragraph 172). It also found that she was underpaid and denied statutory entitlements.

The Authority:

• ordered the employer to pay:
  • compensation of $40,000 and reimbursement of $17,160 for lost wages (see paragraphs 174–176)
  • $14,627.99 in wage arrears and $3,626.40 in holiday pay, with interest (see paragraphs 90–97, 182)
  • penalties totalling $9,000 for (see paragraphs 115–124, 186–188):
    • failing to provide rest and meal breaks
    • breaching record-keeping obligations
    • unfair bargaining, by pressuring the employee to sign a casual employment agreement
• found the director and a business manager were personally liable for the arrears as persons-involved (see paragraphs 183–184)
• ordered the director to pay a penalty of $1,500 for aiding and abetting a breach of the employment agreement (see paragraph 190)

Jiang v Trusted Touch Therapy Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] NZERA 385(external link)

Brennan v Stella 2020 Ltd [2025] NZERA 449

Employment Relations Authority – Unjustified dismissal – 90-day trial – Procedural fairness

At issue was whether the employee was

• unjustifiably dismissed under a 90-day trial period clause
• entitled to compensation for lost wages and humiliation
• entitled to payment in lieu of notice
• unjustifiably disadvantaged by being required to perform managerial duties

The employee was employed as a Senior Stylist. The employee commenced work in May 2024 under an individual employment agreement (IEA).  The IEA included a 90-day trial clause. Under the clause, the employee could be dismissed during the trial with one written week’s written notice.

On 30 July 2024, a new manager told the employee she was being dismissed under the 90-day trial clause and asked her to leave immediately. The employer did not give the employee written notice or pay her for the notice period.

The employee claimed she was unjustifiably dismissed. After raising a personal grievance with the employer she filed a claim with the Authority. The employer did not file a statement in reply or participate in the investigation meeting.

The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed, both procedurally and substantively (see paragraph 26). It said there was no evidence the employee contributed to her dismissal (see paragraph 38).

 In finding the dismissal was unjustified the Authority took into account that:

• The employer did not validly invoke the 90-day trial clause, as it did not give the employee written notice or payment in lieu of notice (see paragraphs 22–23).
• The employer failed to provide any evidence of a fair process or justification for the dismissal (see paragraphs 24–25).

The Authority ordered the employer to pay:

• $22,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (see paragraph 33)
• $4,340 compensation for lost wages (see paragraph 36)
• $1,085 for the unpaid notice period (see paragraph 42).

Brennan v Stella 2020 Ltd [2025] NZERA 449(external link)