Casual text exchange can't override written contract variation requirements, Authority finds
An employer's attempt to change contract terms via text message backfired, resulting in a $41,695 payout to a part-time employee earning just $640 weekly.
Julie Curtis cleaned caravans four hours daily, Monday to Friday, for Affordable UK Caravans and Parts Limited in Christchurch. When she needed surgery in October 2024, her employer Graham Hollobon agreed to time off. Curtis used her annual leave to stay on full pay through early November.
On November 1, 2024, Curtis asked about taking additional leave in advance. Hollobon initially agreed, then reversed course the next day. His message was direct: the company couldn't pay her wages and she should contact social services instead. For three weeks, Curtis received payslips but no money.
The problems escalated on November 28, 2024. Hollobon texted asking if Curtis could delay her return to work due to slow business, mentioning a shipment expected mid-January. Curtis replied immediately with one word: "Sure."
When her doctor cleared her to return December 2, 2024, Hollobon refused. No work existed until mid-January, he said. His response to her request for continued pay was blunt: "No. You get paid when you work."
Months later, the company argued that November text exchange created a valid agreement to suspend Curtis until January 2025. The New Zealand Employment Relations Authority rejected this claim in a determination issued January 28, 2026.
The reasoning was straightforward. The company's own employment contract required written, signed variations. A one-word text from a distracted employee didn't meet that standard. More importantly, the employer failed to follow statutory requirements for changing employment terms, which demand proper bargaining processes.
The Authority also questioned why the company never mentioned this supposed agreement when Curtis's representative first raised dismissal claims in December 2024. The variation argument only surfaced in the company's statement in reply filed nine months later in September 2025.
When asked why he ignored that December correspondence, Hollobon was candid. "Dealing with these people, not a thing that you do!" he told the Authority under oath, referring to Curtis's representative. He called the letter a threat deserving to be ignored.
That attitude proved expensive. The Authority ruled Curtis was unjustifiably dismissed. The company must pay $25,000 for humiliation and distress, plus $8,320 in lost wages, $2,867.20 in overdue holiday pay, $1,280 in withheld wages, and $227.41 in interest.
Penalties added another $4,000. The company paid $2,500 for refusing to provide wage records when requested. This was their second offense for the same violation, the Authority noted. A 2021 case against the same company had resulted in a $1,000 penalty for identical conduct. Another $1,500 penalty applied for failing to pay holiday entitlements at termination. Half of each penalty goes to Curtis, half to the government.
The implications are clear. First, informal communications cannot substitute for proper contract variation processes, regardless of how agreeable employees seem. Second, previous compliance failures create a paper trail that increases future penalties. Third, ignoring employee representatives rarely improves outcomes and often signals bad faith that authorities will punish.
The total bill for trying to cut corners: roughly 66 weeks of Curtis's normal wages, plus legal costs still to be determined.
