Business ordered to pay $36,000 for unjustified dismissal
A Christchurch paving company has been ordered to pay a former labourer more than $36,000 after the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found it unjustifiably dismissed him.
The ERA ruled that the company unjustifiably dismissed the Christchurch labourer by cutting off his wages, imposing unauthorised leave, and abandoning all contact while its director allegedly set up a new business in Australia.
The labourer began working for the Christchurch-based paving firm in August 2024, preparing driveways for tarmac paving.
He typically worked between nine and twelve hours a day, sometimes without standard meal and tea breaks, travelling from Timaru to work his way back to Christchurch over the course of each week, the ERA heard.
When the company shut down for the Christmas period in December 2024, workers were told operations would resume in January 2025. But work never restarted.
The director, who had travelled to Australia, told the worker via text message that he had been injured in a car accident in January and that it could be "6-8 weeks before I'm back at work."
This left the worker without wages and [forced him to] apply for a welfare benefit while he waited for clarity on his employment.
In February 2025, however, he came across an advertisement for an Australian business connected to the director that was actively recruiting workers.
Days later, an email from an unmanned company account informed the worker that leave without pay had been approved for the period 14 February to 13 March – leave he had never requested.
When he pushed back on 1 March, questioning why leave without pay had been imposed without his agreement and noting he had not been paid for Waitangi Day, the director went silent. The worker never heard from him again.
With no resignation, no formal termination notice, and no ongoing contact, the worker engaged an advocate and raised a personal grievance.
The company did not respond to mediation requests and did not participate in the ERA investigation. Its two directors are believed to be residing in Australia.
The company has since ceased trading, though the worker's advocate successfully objected to its removal from the New Zealand Companies Register to allow proceedings to continue.
Unjustified dismissal ruling
The ERA found comprehensively in the worker's favour, determining he had been both unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably dismissed.
On the disadvantage grievance, the Authority found the worker had not been paid during a period when he was available for work and had been improperly placed on unpaid leave without consent.
On the dismissal, the Authority concluded that the director's conduct had effectively brought the employment relationship to an end without any proper process.
"I find [the company] unjustifiably dismissed [the worker] by failing to provide him with ongoing employment from 6 January 2025 and thereafter failed to communicate effectively to maintain the employment relationship," the ERA ruled.
The Authority also noted significant deficiencies in the worker's employment agreement, finding it contravened the Employment Relations Act 2000 by failing to specify guaranteed hours, the days on which work was to be performed, or start and finish times for shifts.
On remedies, the ERA awarded $12,000 in compensation, accepting the worker's evidence that the dismissal had dented his confidence and caused real distress.
Combined unpaid and lost wages were awarded at $19,460.82, calculated on the worker's documented average of 44.93 hours per week at $23.15 per hour.
Holiday pay of $1,556.86 and a costs contribution of $3,000 were also ordered, with the Authority noting the company's complete non-participation in proceedings justified the costs award.
