The sequence between a bullying complaint and dismissal is now under ERA scrutiny
A Christchurch employer dismissed a worker weeks after he raised a formal bullying complaint. Now, the Employment Relations Authority says the case is live.
When Jaime Allum emailed Jet-X Christchurch Limited on 27 March 2024, he was doing exactly what most HR professionals would recommend: documenting a workplace concern. His email was, in his words, "to put in formal writing a bullying complaint…" Jet-X did not uphold it. Weeks later, Allum was in the middle of a disciplinary process. By 20 May 2024, he was gone.
The Employment Relations Authority's determination, issued on 20 February 2026, shows why that sequence matters.
After rejecting the bullying complaint on 3 April 2024, Jet-X issued Allum a letter in late April or early May inviting him to a disciplinary meeting over potential misconduct. On 14 May 2024, it told him his conduct amounted to serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal, describing this as a preliminary decision and giving him until 16 May 2024 to respond.
Allum's representative responded in time, raising grievances of unjustified disadvantage and predetermined unjustified dismissal. Jet-X extended the deadline. On 20 May 2024, Allum's representative filed a final response, adding constructive dismissal to the list. Jet-X confirmed the dismissal at 4.44 pm, effective 5.00 pm that day.
Allum's central argument is that the disciplinary action was retaliatory - triggered by his bullying complaint. Jet-X denied any link, maintaining that its investigation was thorough and fair and the dismissal justified.
The question before the Authority was a narrow one: could Allum's unjustified dismissal claim even be investigated, given that he had raised it before the formal dismissal letter was issued? Jet-X said no. The Authority said yes.
Authority Member Philip Cheyne found, on 20 February 2026, that grievances raised during a disciplinary process - even before a final dismissal letter - can be treated "substantively and realistically as an unjustified dismissal grievance." The dismissal claim is now properly before the Authority. The substantive hearing, which will test the retaliation argument and the fairness of the process, is still to come. Costs were reserved.
For people managers, the case raises questions that go well beyond procedure. When disciplinary action follows closely on the heels of a rejected bullying complaint, that sequence becomes evidence in itself - regardless of whether the two matters are genuinely unrelated. Clearly documenting the independence of each process, from start to finish, is not optional.
The language in disciplinary letters also carries more weight than many realise. Allum's representative characterised Jet-X's approach as having predetermined the dismissal - a claim drawn directly from how the process was run - and it became part of the grievance. Every letter is a potential exhibit.
How an employer responds to a bullying complaint, and what follows afterwards, will be looked at together if a claim reaches the Authority. In cases like this one, thorough and well-documented complaint handling is not just good practice. It is the defence.
