Her union missed the deadline by 24 hours - but the breach of contract fight is far from over
A New Zealand teacher dismissed for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine has kept her breach of contract claims alive - but only just.
The Employment Court granted the teacher an extension of time on October 5 after her union miscalculated the deadline to challenge an employment authority ruling by a single day.
The teacher had worked at Cromwell College as a resource teacher of learning and behaviour since October 2012. In November 2021, New Zealand amended its COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order to require certain education sector employees to be vaccinated. The teacher was not vaccinated, and the College gave her notice of termination on December 2, 2021. Her effective date of dismissal was February 4, 2022.
Nearly three years passed before she lodged a claim with the Employment Relations Authority.
That claim cast a wide net. It included personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and disadvantage, alleged breaches of the employment agreement, a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and a damages claim for breach of good faith. The good faith claim was later dropped.
The Authority's ruling, issued January 8, 2026, went against the teacher on every front. On the disadvantage grievance, it held it had no power to investigate because the College was simply carrying out the vaccination order - the validity of which had already been upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal. On the unjustified dismissal grievance, the Authority found it was not raised within the required 90 days. The breach of contract claims also fell away, with the Authority finding no basis in fact or law to pursue them.
The teacher was left facing a costs order.
Then came the filing mistake. The union's general secretary miscalculated the time to challenge the Authority's ruling, and the challenge arrived one day late.
The College opposed the extension. Its counsel pointed to what it described as a pattern: the original delay of nearly three years before lodging the claim, missed case management deadlines during the Authority investigation, and the unpaid costs order.
The Court was not persuaded. The three-year gap was irrelevant because it fell within the statutory time allowed. Procedural delays were a matter for the Authority. The unpaid costs order was a debt issue with no bearing on the application. The one-day delay, the Court held, should be excused.
But granting extra time was only half the story. The College's counsel had proposed bundling the extension question together with a look at whether the teacher's proposed claims had any jurisdictional legs. Both sides agreed.
What the Court found was a draft statement of claim it described as leaving "significant room for improvement" - an "amalgamation of pleadings of fact, references to the collective agreement, submissions" and references to repealed legislation and case law. Neither party had provided a copy of the relevant collective agreement for analysis.
During the proceedings, it became clear the teacher had walked away from both personal grievance claims entirely. What remained were breach of contract arguments tied to the Secondary Teachers Collective Agreement, which was in force from July 2022 to July 2025. These covered three areas: alleged breaches relating to the variation of employment terms, teacher conduct and discipline provisions, and obligations around providing a safe workplace.
The College argued all the contract claims were baseless. Some of the collective agreement provisions the teacher relied on dealt with conduct and discipline - matters that had nothing to do with the College's decision. And the teacher had not pointed to any specific failure to provide a safe workplace.
The Court took a different view. While the draft pleading was plainly deficient, the Court could not say the proposed breach of contract claims had no merit or were so weak they should block the extension. It identified two possible arguments: that the College misapplied the vaccination order to the teacher's specific role, and that the position may have changed following the order in a way that could trigger redundancy provisions in the collective agreement. The Court stressed it was reaching no conclusions on either point, and both would need "careful elucidation."
The extension was granted. The teacher now has 14 days from the judgment date to file a properly drafted statement of claim setting out her breach of contract claims. Costs were reserved.
Even where personal grievance avenues close off, contract-based claims anchored to collective agreement provisions can keep a vaccine mandate dispute alive well beyond the dismissal itself.
The matter will proceed on the breach of contract claims once the statement of claim is filed and served. No findings have been made on the merits of those claims.
