The ERA questioned whether the employer's own framework was applied consistently
A New Zealand manager dismissed for bypassing HR procedures has won interim reinstatement, while alleging his own boss handled a similar situation identically.
On 10 March 2026, the Employment Relations Authority ordered Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) to reinstate field operations manager Clive Bryham within seven days, pending an investigation meeting on 12 and 13 May 2026.
Bryham had worked for Omexom for over 16 years when he was summarily dismissed on 18 November 2025, having risen from contract manager to field operations manager. The case centred on his informal handling of two separate incidents involving a direct report referred to as AVM.
The first incident occurred roughly 18 months before August 2025, when AVM allegedly distributed his contractor card. Bryham issued only a verbal warning without formally investigating or notifying his manager, Bradley Pirie. In May 2025, Bryham received an outside-of-work allegation that AVM was doing cash-in-hand work during company hours using company resources. AVM denied it, a colleague discouraged escalation, and again Bryham issued a verbal warning without documentation or notifying Pirie.
In October 2025, key client Vector Limited flagged an illegal cable connection in West Auckland linked to AVM. An investigation revealed Bryham had known about both prior incidents without reporting them. Suspended on full pay on 20 October 2025, he later challenged the decision as unjustified, though the Authority found this claim not particularly strong.
At an investigation meeting on 23 October 2025, Bryham acknowledged he had "made a great mistake" and said he would do things differently. Despite this, Omexom dismissed him on 18 November 2025, placing his conduct in Category 8 of its Just Culture Matrix, concluding he had circumvented procedures for personal benefit. His advocate disagreed, arguing Category 5 applied, calling for coaching rather than dismissal.
At his final meeting on 13 November 2025, Bryham raised a disparate treatment complaint, pointing out that Pirie had reportedly handled a similar cash-in-hand allegation against another employee in the same informal manner, without investigation or documentation. He requested an independent review from the perimeter director due to the conflict of interest. The termination letter dated 18 November 2025 addressed the disparate treatment argument, stating the circumstances involving Pirie were materially different.
The Authority identified a disconnect in Omexom's reasoning. The termination letter cited potential harm to the Vector relationship, but the Employee Handbook requires actual harm as the threshold for instant dismissal, and no such evidence was produced. It noted Bryham's statement at the October meeting: "I just thought I was doing the right thing…" and found this relevant to whether the self-interest finding was reasonably open.
One of Bryham's direct reports expressed distress about his return, fearing he would be targeted, though the Authority noted no prior issues between the two in 10 years of working together and that Bryham had shown no post-employment conduct of concern, attesting he harboured no ill will. Omexom claimed morale had improved since his departure, but the Authority weighed his 16-year record as a proven performer, one unrelated disciplinary matter in 2016 aside, alongside his mortgage of $3,000 per month, household bills of $4,000 per month, his wife's irregular income, and a limited job market for someone aged 55 with specialised skills.
It was submitted that if interim reinstatement were granted, Bryham should be reinstated to the payroll only. However, the Authority ordered full active reinstatement, noting that while payroll-only reinstatement would alleviate his financial difficulties, allowing him to work would remove the financial risk of having to repay Omexom if his claims were not substantiated at the May 2026 hearing.
This decision highlights that those conducting disciplinary investigations should have no personal exposure to comparable allegations, that internal frameworks such as Just Culture Matrices may face formal legal scrutiny, and that dismissal decisions must precisely reflect the language of a company's own policies. Costs were reserved pending the substantive outcome.
