Seven grievances, zero wins, and a 90-day deadline that quietly ran out on him
A Super Cheap Auto worker who brought seven grievances against his employer lost them all, Authority member Sarah Blick ruled on 2 June 2026.
Benjamin Fuller, a part-time retail team member at the automotive parts chain since October 2022, brought seven disadvantage claims to the Employment Relations Authority in Fuller v Super Cheap Auto (New Zealand) Pty Limited [2026] NZERA 335. They ranged from a disciplinary warning to a withheld bonus to alleged bullying by his store manager. The Authority rejected every one.
The matter began in October 2023. His store manager saw him mixing paint without the required protective equipment, then spotted him on CCTV vaping with another staff member in the office and battery area. At a disciplinary meeting, with his mother as his support person, Fuller accepted the conduct and apologised. Super Cheap Auto issued a final written warning in December 2023.
Fuller emailed an HR address days later saying the warning was unfair, but did not pursue it. He only formally challenged it through a representative in November 2024, after the warning cost him a payout under the company's "FY25 Reward Campaign", a bonus scheme that excluded staff with recorded Code of Conduct breaches during the qualifying period.
The warning claim never reached the merits. A personal grievance must be raised within 90 days, and Blick was not satisfied Fuller's earlier email had done so. An assertion of unfairness, she found, "did not, without more, amount to raising a personal grievance." The grievance was first raised in November 2024, outside the window, and Super Cheap Auto had not consented to it being filed late. The Authority had no jurisdiction over the warning.
The remaining claims also failed. Fuller argued the bonus criteria did not explicitly mention written warnings, but Blick found his reading of the eligibility rules too narrow, and noted the company had paid him the bonus anyway. He said being left out left him humiliated in front of colleagues, though the evidence did not show Super Cheap Auto had disclosed his bonus status.
Fuller also alleged his manager bullied him by raising co-workers' complaints, telling staff not to talk to him, and reading out negative customer feedback he says named him. The Authority found the complaints were properly put to him, that the evidence did not establish he was named in the meeting, and that managers had been reminded not to identify staff in survey feedback. His claim that the company's investigation of his concerns was one-sided also failed, with Blick noting Fuller conceded the issues had eased since he raised them.
On the warning itself, Blick added that even if it had been in time, the result would have been the same. She described the decision to issue it as "proportionate in the circumstances and was open to a fair and reasonable employer", pointing to the health and safety policies and Fuller's own admissions.
Fuller had also sought penalties for an alleged breach of good faith. Blick found none established. With no personal grievances made out, no remedies were available, and the penalty claim was declined. Costs were reserved.
