The employee was drunk at work, but the employer still lost the case
A company director faces personal liability after sacking an employee who arrived drunk—proof that even obvious misconduct cases fail without proper process.
The January 8, 2026 decision from New Zealand's Employment Relations Authority delivered an expensive lesson: having good reasons to fire someone means nothing if you skip the steps. L&B Foods Limited and its director now owe over $21,000 because they got the procedure wrong, even though they got the facts right.
Jagjit Singh worked as a kitchen hand at Kafal Indian Cuisine in Whangamata under a work visa. On the evening of February 26, 2024, he showed up to the restaurant drunk. Director Vivek Vivek sent him away, but Singh returned at closing time, still intoxicated, arguing about why he couldn't work. Staff had to help him upstairs to his room above the restaurant. Customers witnessed the scene.
The next day, Singh received an email: "this email is to inform Jagjit Singh that he is fired from his Job at Kafal Indian Cuisine Whangamata." That was it. No meeting, no chance to explain, no investigation beyond what the director saw himself.
The Authority acknowledged the misconduct was real. Turning up drunk during business hours was "a conscious decision" and a clear breach of workplace obligations. Authority member Helen van Druten found that "a fair and reasonable employer could have formed the view that Mr Singh's actions amounted to misconduct or serious misconduct justifying dismissal."
But the dismissal still failed. The employer never gave Singh a chance to respond before making the decision. There were claims of prior warnings about drinking, but no documentation existed. The company argued that investigation was pointless since the director witnessed everything firsthand, and any meeting would be futile given the circumstances.
Wrong, said the Authority. Even when the outcome seems certain, employees deserve an opportunity to provide context or raise factors unknown to the employer. The decision found that "a fair and reasonable employer could not have dismissed Mr Singh in this manner."
Record-keeping problems compounded the issues. The company's handwritten roster showed exactly 30 hours every single week—no variation, no changes. The Authority found this suspiciously neat pattern unreliable as proof of actual hours worked. When employers fail to maintain proper time records, Section 132 of the Employment Relations Act allows authorities to accept employee claims as proven. The burden flips entirely.
Singh received $8,933 for unjustified dismissal, reduced by one-third because his misconduct contributed to the situation. He also got $12,165 in unpaid wages for disputed periods, plus holiday pay and interest.
The sharpest consequence hit the director personally. Under sections 142W and 142Y of the Employment Relations Act, Vivek Vivek can be held individually liable for unpaid wages if the company doesn't pay. The Authority found he had direct control over employment decisions and payroll instructions, making him personally accountable for the breaches.
The determination dismissed claims that small business size justified cutting corners on process. The time and effort required to handle disciplinary matters properly "must be regarded as an essential management responsibility," regardless of company size.
For managers dealing with workplace discipline, the math is simple: documentation plus process equals protection. Skip either one, and even the most clear-cut misconduct case can cost you.
