A recent Employment Relations Authority determination provides a useful reminder that an employer’s obligations cannot be separated into neat compartments. Payroll compliance, workplace conduct and disciplinary decision-making may arise from different events, but each can influence whether the employer’s actions are ultimately found to be fair and reasonable.
In April v Coatrite Fire Ltd, the Authority upheld an employee’s personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. It also found that the employer had underpaid the employee, made unlawful deductions from his wages and failed to comply with its statutory record-keeping and holiday pay obligations.
The employer was ordered to pay the employee compensation, lost wages, wage and holiday pay arrears, reimbursement of unlawful deductions, interest and a penalty. The case illustrates the significant financial and legal consequences that may arise when payroll concerns are not promptly addressed and a disciplinary process does not provide an employee with sufficient information or a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Background
Duane April was employed by Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter from January 2023 until his dismissal in May 2024. He had moved to New Zealand to work for Coatrite under an accredited employer work visa.
Mr April’s individual employment agreement provided for a gross hourly rate of $38 and a minimum of 40 hours’ work each week. However, he was paid $35 per hour throughout his employment. Coatrite accepted that the incorrect rate had been entered into its payroll system and that $7,790.40 in gross wage arrears remained owing.
Mr April’s wages were also subject to deductions totalling $968 for company expenses, fines and equipment. Although the employment agreement contained a deductions provision, it required written notice and authorisation. Coatrite had not followed that process.
The Authority found that the underpayment and deductions breached Mr April’s employment conditions and caused him unjustified disadvantage. Payroll errors and workload pressures did not justify Coatrite’s failure to pay the agreed rate or comply with the contractual and statutory requirements applying to deductions.
Workplace conduct and the unjustified warning
The Authority also considered comments made during discussions about the condition of Mr April’s work vehicle. It found, on the balance of probabilities, that Coatrite’s managing director had made a racialised comment to Mr April.
Although offence may not have been intended, the Authority accepted that Mr April understood the comment as racialised and felt offended and demeaned. This breached the employment agreement, which expressly provided for a workplace free from racial harassment, bullying and intimidation, and caused Mr April unjustified disadvantage.
Coatrite had also emailed Mr April directing him to treat the correspondence as a “verbal warning” for mistreating company property. The Authority found that this was a disciplinary sanction. Because Coatrite could not demonstrate that the warning was substantively or procedurally justified, Mr April established a further personal grievance.
Why the dismissal was unjustified
Coatrite later invited Mr April to a disciplinary meeting concerning allegations relating to his attendance, breaks, work quality, treatment of company property and honesty. The invitation warned that dismissal was a possible outcome but did not include supporting information.
The Authority identified several fundamental defects in the process:
- The allegations lacked sufficient detail and supporting evidence to enable Mr April to respond meaningfully.
- Information later relied on by Coatrite had not been disclosed during the disciplinary process.
- The concern about the vehicle was broadened from a single incident to an alleged consistent failure, despite the earlier warning having already addressed the issue.
- Mr April was unfairly denied the opportunity to have his father participate as his support person by video call.
- Relevant context, including the wage underpayment, deductions and concerns about workplace treatment, was not properly considered.
- The disciplinary meeting reasonably left Mr April with the impression that the parties would work towards getting the employment relationship back on track.
- Coatrite then unfairly relied on Mr April’s failure to provide further information after the meeting.
- The ultimate decision-maker did not attend the disciplinary meeting.
- The Authority concluded that these were not minor or technical defects. They were central to the process and meant Coatrite did not have a reasonable and justified basis to dismiss Mr April.
Employer unable to offset most alleged losses
Coatrite sought to offset amounts it said Mr April owed for vehicle infringements, damaged spray equipment and remedial work.
Only five parking infringement notices totalling $200 were established. The remaining claims failed because they were stale and Coatrite could not sufficiently prove Mr April’s responsibility.
Outcome
Coatrite was ordered to pay Mr April:
- $28,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings;
- $18,240 gross for lost wages;
- $7,790.40 gross in wage arrears;
- $623.23 gross in holiday pay arrears;
- $968 for unlawful deductions;
- interest on the total arrears; and
- a $4,000 penalty, half payable to Mr April and half to the Crown.
Mr April was ordered to reimburse Coatrite $200 for the established parking infringements. Costs were reserved.
Lessons for employers
This determination provides several practical reminders:
- Employment agreements must be accurately reflected in payroll systems.
- Underpayment concerns should be investigated and corrected promptly.
- A general deductions clause is not authority to deduct any disputed amount.
- Disciplinary allegations must be particularised and supported by relevant information.
- Employers must not broaden allegations without giving the employee a further opportunity to respond.
- Reasonable requests for representation/support persons, including remote participation, should be accommodated.
- Employee explanations and relevant surrounding concerns must be genuinely considered.
- The decision-maker must remain open-minded until the process is complete.
Getting employment processes right
This case is a reminder that employment issues rarely arise in isolation. Payroll compliance, workplace conduct and disciplinary processes can all affect whether an employer’s actions are ultimately considered fair and reasonable.
If you need advice on a disciplinary process, personal grievance or other employment issue, contact our employment law team.


