Driver did not inform his employer that he had a pending court case
A Christchurch truck driver who was "dishonest" about his pending drink-driving court case has won a reduced payout after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruled that he was unjustifiably dismissed by his employer.
The case arose after the truck driver, who started work for a national freight company on 12 February 2024, was disqualified from driving following a drink‑driving conviction on 28 February 2024.
Unable to drive, he was shifted to yard duties while he attempted to secure a limited work licence.
The employer argued it had followed a full disciplinary process and dismissed the driver for serious misconduct after he allegedly lied at his job interview about having no convictions or pending court cases, and then lost his licence.
The company produced three letters it said had been given to him: an invitation to a disciplinary meeting, a preliminary decision, and a termination letter.
The driver, however, insisted no such letters or formal process ever occurred and said he was simply called into a meeting in April 2024 and told he was dismissed.
Yard manager's account
Crucially, a third version came from the yard manager, a current employee who was summonsed to give evidence.
The yard manager described a series of meetings focused on helping the driver get a limited licence and said it was clear the branch manager "was prepared to retain" him in employment providing he successfully secured a limited licence.
He told the ERA that no disciplinary process was mentioned and that the final meeting turned sour only when the driver suggested the company should pay for the licence application, which he considered "really cheeky."
The ERA ultimately preferred the yard manager's account of what led to the dismissal and was highly sceptical of the employer's claim that there had been a structured disciplinary process.
No formal termination
The Authority found it was "more likely than not that no formal termination process" to dismiss the driver was followed and that "no letters relating to a disciplinary process or outcome were issued."
It noted that "nobody except [the branch manager] had seen any of these letters until at least October 2024," some six months after the dismissal.
The company was also unable to produce any electronic copies or metadata for the alleged letters. The manager told the Authority he typed them in Microsoft Word, printed them, then deleted the files.
But the ERA was not persuaded that privacy concerns justified this practice, particularly when physical copies were kept in a filing cabinet accessible to other staff.
The Authority also questioned the authenticity and timing of the manager's handwritten "meeting notes," which purported to record detailed conversations in neat, error‑free block capitals.
It said it was "unlikely that [the manager] was able to have written down everything he said, and everything [the driver] said in response, while maintaining such a neat and error‑free set of notes," especially while leading the discussions.
By contrast, the yard manager gave what the Authority described as "a compelling witness" account of an impromptu dismissal.
The yard manager's version, including that no termination letter was handed over at the final meeting, directly conflicted with the narrative in the handwritten notes and the purported disciplinary letters.
"It was therefore an impromptu dismissal without any process," the ERA ruled, saying that the company later "retrofitted a process" to justify that dismissal.
"These are considerable flaws rendering the dismissal procedurally unjustified."
'Dishonest' driver conduct
Meanwhile, the ERA accepted that the driver's conduct was serious.
"[The driver's] actions at the job interview were deliberately dishonest," the ERA said. "He said he did not have any criminal convictions or pending court cases even though he knew the loss of his licence would mean he could not do the duties of the role."
The ERA also noted that he made "minimal effort" to obtain a limited licence despite knowing his employment depended on it.
On that basis, compensation of $10,000 for hurt and humiliation was reduced by 50% for contribution, leaving $5,000 payable. His claim for lost wages was also declined because he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.
