ERA found absolutely no process behind two warnings before worker resigned
A New Zealand barber who resigned after two unjustified warnings and a dismissive text from his manager has been awarded more than $26,000 by the Employment Relations Authority.
In a determination released on 23 April 2026, the Authority found that Professional Stylish Barber Shop Limited constructively dismissed Adarsh Chand, a full-time barber who began working at the shop on 12 December 2022.
Chand's case turned on a sequence of events that will feel uncomfortably familiar to anyone who has watched a workplace relationship unravel through bad process and worse communication.
He claimed that in his first week he worked 55 hours rather than the 40 set out in his employment agreement, and said the figure rose to 58.5 hours once unpaid breaks were factored in. He also alleged he was threatened with deportation after complaining about his hours, threatened with physical harm in April 2023 after a trip to Fiji, and accused by the company's director, Pravin Kumar, of taking drugs and keeping them at home in March 2023. The Authority did not make explicit findings on these background allegations, and Chand's separate claims for unpaid wages, sick leave breaches and inadequate wage and time records were not made out, with the Authority accepting the accuracy of the company's records.
What did stick was the disciplinary process, or rather the absence of one.
On 13 February 2024, Chand received a written warning citing customer complaints and an allegation of possessing a prohibited substance at work. He disputed the allegations. The Authority found that "Allegations were not put to Mr Chand to answer, no investigation was carried out, and no ability to have a representative at any interview was discussed and indeed no interview with Mr Chand was held."
A month later, on 12 March 2024, the manager (and director's son) Praneet Kumar asked Chand for a copy of his tenancy agreement, saying Immigration New Zealand required it. Chand checked with Immigration, who told him no such request had been made. He raised this with the manager, and on 13 March 2024 he received a text from the manager that read, in full: "DONT COME TO WORK ANYMORE IN MY SHOP".
Chand asked whether he was being dismissed. After a conversation with Pravin Kumar, he returned to work, with Pravin Kumar telling him he would be dismissed when he received a letter.
On 23 March 2024, Chand was issued a second warning, this time for unsatisfactory work performance and customer service, again with no investigation, no opportunity to respond, and a notice that his performance would be reviewed in two weeks with possible termination to follow. He resigned on 2 April 2024, with a final day of 13 April 2024.
The Authority found both warnings were procedurally and substantively unjustified, and that the combination of the warnings, the text, and a reasonable belief he would no longer be treated fairly amounted to a constructive dismissal. Authority Member Geoff O'Sullivan went so far as to suggest Chand may have already been dismissed by text before he ever resigned.
Chand had also asked the Authority to allow him to recover lost wages personally from Pravin Kumar as a person involved in a breach of employment standards. Because the underlying wage claims were not made out, the Authority did not consider granting that leave, but the point is a useful reminder that directors and managers can be personally exposed when minimum standards breaches are proven.
Chand was awarded $12,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation, well below the $50,000 he sought, plus three months' lost wages of $14,560 (less PAYE), based on a 40-hour week at $28 per hour. No deduction was made for contributory conduct. Costs were reserved.
The case is a reminder that warnings issued without investigation, without putting allegations to the employee, and without the right to representation are unlikely to survive scrutiny, regardless of the underlying conduct. It is also a pointed lesson on informal manager communications: a single impulsive text can become Exhibit A in a constructive dismissal claim, and the cost of a rushed performance management process can comfortably outweigh the cost of doing it properly.
