Everyone
Cases of interest: January 2026
A summary of interesting or topical employment cases.
AX v Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2026] NZEmpC 9
Employment Court – Non-publication order – Challenge to determination declining non-publication order
At issue was whether the Employment Court (the Court) should make a permanent non-publication order preventing the publication of:
- the names and identifying details of the plaintiffs
- all references to proceedings against the plaintiffs in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority)
- all information filed in the Authority
- all documentation filed in the challenge.
The Labour Inspector brought proceedings against the two plaintiffs in the Authority. The proceedings were ultimately withdrawn and discontinued, before the Authority made any determination. The plaintiffs sought permanent non-publication orders with respect to the discontinued proceedings. The Authority declined to make permanent non-publication orders. The plaintiffs challenged the Authority’s decision in the Court.
The plaintiffs submitted that:
- The Authority never made any factual, credibility, or legal findings about the allegations against them, in those circumstances the allegations should not be published.
- Despite no findings being made against the plaintiffs, publication would have the same reputational consequences as if adverse findings had been made.
- The principle of open justice held little weight as there was no judicial reasoning to scrutinise, and no public interest would be served by the publication of untested and withdrawn allegations.
The Labour Inspector submitted that:
- The Labour Inspectorate is subject to the Official Information Act 1982(external link), non-publication would prevent it from adequately responding to media requests or complaints regarding the plaintiffs and their associated entities. This includes being able to explain why the proceedings were discontinued.
- The plaintiffs have been included in previous litigation, some of these decisions are public.
- There was no evidence that publication would lead to adverse consequences for the plaintiffs, and even if there was, it would not justify a departure from the principle of open justice.
The Court found that:
- There would likely be public interest in the Labour Inspectorate providing information under the Official Information Act regarding a case, even when the case was withdrawn (see paragraph 34).
- Non-publication would lessen the media’s ability to fairly and accurately report on proceedings (see paragraph 35).
- No specific adverse consequences to publication for the plaintiffs had been identified (see paragraph 37).
The Court dismissed the applications (see paragraph 40).
The Court granted an interim non-publication order until 06 March 2026 to allow the plaintiffs to lodge an application for leave to appeal the judgment and for the Court of Appeal to consider non-publication (see paragraph 41).
Mowat v Christchurch Boys' High School Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 855
Employment Relations Authority – Personal grievance – Unjustified constructive dismissal – Unjustified disadvantage
At issue was:
- whether the employee was unjustifiably constructively dismissed.
- whether the employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged in their employment.
The employee worked as a teacher. Someone sent a series of anonymous letters to the employer which contained allegations against the Headmaster. The Headmaster wrote to the employer, advising the employer that they suspected the employee had written the letters. The employer referred the letters to the Police for handwriting analysis. The analysis was inconclusive. The employee raised concerns with the employer that they would be blamed for writing these letters. The employer failed to tell the employee that:
- The Headmaster had already blamed the employee three times in writing.
- Their handwriting had already been sent off for analysis.
- They intended to investigate the employee.
The employer conducted an independent investigation into the employee. The investigator could not conclude who wrote the letters. The employee wrote to the employer with concerns and to request a follow-up on a question they had previously asked. The employer stated in their response to the employee that they did not intend to re-litigate issues or respond to issues that had been responded to during the course of the investigation. The employee resigned more than nine months after the conclusion of the investigation, citing the investigations into the employee and the communications from the Board following the investigation as reasons for the resignation.
The employee submitted that:
- The Headmaster treated them badly and blamed them for things that they did not do.
- The employer supported the Headmaster at the expense of the employee.
- The employer’s behaviour caused their employment to become untenable, ultimately leading to their resignation.
The employer submitted that:
- It had addressed the employee’s concerns.
- Its actions were that of a responsible, fair, and reasonable employer.
- The employee chose to resign for their own reasons.
The Employment Relations Authority:
- found that the employee was disadvantaged through the employer’s failure to adequately address their concerns (see paragraph 270)
- found that the employee was not constructively dismissed as (see paragraph 298):
- The disadvantage was not sufficient to warrant the employee’s resignation.
- The actions taken by the parties in the months following had overtaken any disadvantage experienced by the employee.
- awarded the employee $25,000 in compensation (see paragraph 303).
Chunyan v Miaodi's Laundromat t/a Mr Suds [2026] NZERA 31
Employment Relations Authority – Personal grievance – Unjustified dismissal – Unjustified disadvantage
Employment Relations Authority – Minimum employment standards breaches – Arrears – Penalties
At issue was:
- whether the employees were dismissed, and if so, whether the dismissal was justified
- whether the employees were unjustifiably disadvantaged by the employer’s failure to pay them their statutory entitlements
- whether the employees were owed arrears for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay
- whether the employer had breached minimum employment standards or the duty of good faith, and if so, whether a penalty should be imposed on the employer
- whether penalties should be imposed on the director of the employer for aiding and abetting any breaches.
Four employees travelled to New Zealand to work for the employer on Accredited Employer Work Visas (AEWVs). The employees were paid for their contractual hours each week, but often worked more than their contractual hours. The employer told the employees that it would pay the employees for all additional hours worked as a lump sum at the end of the year when it considered it was in a stronger financial position.
The employees submitted complaints to the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and were subsequently issued Migrant Exploitation Protection Visas (MEPVs). The employees continued to work for the employer. The employer conducted visa checks for all employees on site and, upon learning that the visa situation of the four employees had changed, requested clarification regarding their visa status. The employees were suspended until they provided clarification, the employees did not provide the requested information to the employer. The employees were not offered any additional work, however no formal notice of termination of employment was provided.
The employees submitted that they were too scared of retaliation to provide the requested information to the employer.
The employer submitted that they did not dismiss the employees. The employer submitted that they suspended the employees pending clarification of their visa status and that the employees did not return to work following the employer’s request for clarification or the suspension.
The Authority found that:
- Not providing work to the employees constituted a “sending away” of the employees by the employer (see paragraph 51). Accordingly, the employees were unjustifiably dismissed (see paragraph 52).
- The employees were unjustifiably disadvantaged by the failure of the employer to pay them their contractual wage entitlements (see paragraph 56).
- The employer had breached the Wages Protection Act 1983(external link), the Holidays Act 2003(external link) and the Employment Relations Act 2000(external link) (see paragraph 59).
The Authority ordered the employer to pay:
- $10,000 in penalties for breaches of minimum employment standards (see paragraph 82)
- approximately $29,000 in outstanding wage and holiday pay owed to the employees (see paragraph 92)
- 13 weeks lost wages to each employee (see paragraph 94)
- compensation of $18,000 to each employee (see paragraphs 98 and 102).
Chunyan v Miaodi’s Laundromat t/a Mr Suds [2026] NZERA 31 (PDF, 64 KB)(external link)
Singh v Tauranga Mount Taxis Ltd [2026] NZERA 19
Employment Relations Authority – Employment status – Taxi driver
At issue was whether a taxi driver had a contractual relationship with the respondent which amounted to an employment relationship.
The worker worked as a taxi driver. The worker was a member of the Tauranga Taxi Society Ltd (the Provident Society). The Provident Society collected funds, levies, and shareholder payments from its members.
The worker sold their shares in the Provident Society and ended their membership. The worker raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
The worker submitted that the named respondent was the correct one, as:
- The respondent managed all operational and employment matters, and was used for marketing purposes.
- The respondent was the entity that issued warnings and fines, rosters, and communications.
The respondent submitted that:
- It is a shelf company with no employees; there was no evidence it had any contracts of employment or trading activities.
- The members of the Provident Society were not employees.
- It was not an “operational arm” of the Provident Society; the Provident Society was a stand-alone entity.
- There was no evidence that they had contracted with the worker.
- The worker was subject to the rules of the Provident Society; they paid a levy to the society and received benefits in exchange. Drivers who were members of the Provident Society had independent merchant numbers and predominately charged passengers independently.
The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) found that the worker was a member of the Provident Society at the relevant times and was aware that they were a member (see paragraph 24). The Authority accepted that the respondent was not a trading entity at all (see paragraph 24). The Authority did not find any indication that the worker had any contractual or employment relationship with the respondent, subsequently the Authority did not have jurisdiction to hear the worker’s claims against the named respondent and declined to progress the matter any further (see paragraphs 25, 26).
The Authority considered whether two other entities subsequently named by the worker should be joined to the proceedings, but declined to do so (see paragraph 31).
Singh v Tauranga Mount Taxis Ltd [2026] NZERA 19 (PDF, 147 KB)(external link)
King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14
Employment Relations Authority – Personal grievance – Dismissal under 90-day trial period provision – Previous employment
At issue was whether an employee who had previously completed cash work for the employer was a new employee and subject to a 90-day trial period provision. If the employee was not a new employee, the issue for the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) was whether the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee in reliance on the trial period provisions was justifiable.
The employee interviewed for a position with the employer. The employee was sent an employment agreement the following day. Two days after the interview, the employer asked the employee if they would like to do work for a cash payment, which they agreed to. Four days later the employee signed the employment agreement and started work.
The employee clashed with other employees and with the employer. An incident occurred when the employee stated that they were threatened by another employee. The employer investigated and resolved the matter by ensuring that they did not work together when possible. Another workplace incident arose when the employee failed to attend a third-party worksite which was in the process of merging with the employer. The employer met with the employee to discuss the concerns they had with the employee and during this meeting, the employer terminated the employment in accordance with the 90-day trial period provision.
The employee submitted that:
- They were already an employee of the employer when they signed the employment agreement, so the 90-day trial period provision did not apply to them.
- They were unjustifiably dismissed.
The employer submitted that:
- The work performed by the employee before they signed the employment agreement was done on a contracting basis, and that they were a new employee once they signed the employment agreement.
- The 90-day trial period provision applied to the employee, accordingly they were permitted to end the employment under the trial period provision.
The Authority found that:
- The employee was employed by the employer from the date on which they completed the work for cash. As they were not a new employee when they signed the employment agreement the 90-day trial period did not apply to them (see paragraph 28).
- As the employer dismissed the employee with reliance on an invalid provision in the employment agreement, the employee was unjustifiably dismissed (see paragraph 40).
The Authority awarded the employee lost wages of $13,650 and $15,000 as compensation for hurt and humiliation (see paragraph 53).
King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 (PDF, 160 KB)(external link)