Labelled casual, he flagged every appointment upfront, then a text ended it six days in
A car dealer that fired a salesman by text after six days lost an unjustified dismissal case, member Rachel Larmer ruled on 12 May 2026.
Kyle Horsefield started as a sales representative at Eurocars Limited, which trades as Oceanic Cars and Car4Every1, on 12 November 2024. The agreement he signed carried the word "Casual" on its cover. But Horsefield says he had told the business he wanted full-time work and only signed after being assured the role would be full time. He claims the casual label was chosen so the company could end the arrangement easily.
His first days on the job were busy outside work too. Horsefield attended physio for a recently broken ankle, met the family lawyer about his late grandmother's will, and made an unexpected trip to hospital when his stepfather was rushed there. He says he raised the physio and legal commitments at his interview and was told they would not be a problem, and that he asked for and was given approval each time one came up.
Then, on the morning of 21 November 2024, as he was leaving a physio appointment, a text from Eurocars ended the job: "Please accept the notice for your casual employment termination."
Eurocars denied dismissing him. It argued Horsefield was a casual employee and the message simply meant no further casual work would be offered, so there was no dismissal. The company's sole director, Durgesh Durgesh, did not appear at the February 2026 investigation meeting because he was in India, and his witness statement was unsigned and could not be tested.
In Horsefield v Eurocars Limited t/a Oceanic Cars and Car4Every1 [2026] NZERA 293, the Authority looked past the "casual" label. The term is not defined in legislation, it noted, and putting the word on an agreement does not by itself make a relationship casual. What mattered was the reality: although Horsefield had no fixed days or hours, there was a mutual expectation of ongoing work. He was, the Authority found, a permanent employee.
That made the text a summary dismissal, delivered without the notice his agreement required. Clause 18.1 of the contract called for one hour's notice or one hour's pay in lieu, and neither was given. The Authority also found Eurocars had breached its good-faith duty by never making clear how and when work would be allocated, leaving Horsefield unable to plan his appointments around the company's needs.
On whether the dismissal was justified, the Authority found Eurocars had not investigated its concerns about his attendance, raised them with him, or given him any chance to respond before acting. As the Authority put it: "There was no suggestion by Eurocars that Mr Horsefield had engaged in serious misconduct." A fair and reasonable employer, it added, could only dismiss for poor attendance after a graduated warning process.
The Authority ordered Eurocars to pay Horsefield $12,345 within 28 days, made up of $6,345 in lost wages and $6,000 for the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings caused by the dismissal. His penalty claim did not succeed, and the Authority found no blameworthy conduct on his part that would reduce the award. As the successful party, Horsefield was entitled to a contribution towards his costs, with a notional starting point of $2,250.
Changes: title and keywords reframed from "casual worker" to "casual contract"; paragraph 2 cover word capitalised to "Casual"; paragraph 8 restructured so the misconduct quote keeps its full stop.
