A recent case Gorrett v Skibo Ltd [[2026] NZERA 241; 22/04/26; S Greening] is interesting for the potential application of the new personal grievance provisions that came into effect when the Employment Relations Act was amended February 21 2026. What makes this case particularly interesting is that while the case and dismissal took effect before the new February 2026 Serious Misconduct provisions apply, it is a very good example of the type of situation the new legislation appears designed to address with the outcome broadly consistent with the new serious misconduct provisions relating to application of remedies.
Background
Mr. Gorrett was employed by Skibo Ltd, trading as Wynn Fraser Paints (Wynn Fraser), as a sales assistant from 7 October 2024 until his dismissal on 26 February 2025. Mr Gorrett claimed he was unjustifiably dismissed when his employment was ended without any disciplinary process.
Wynn Fraser’s female staff member (CXJ) sought a meeting with the branch manager on 26 February 2025. CXJ alleged that Mr Gorrett had been sexually harassing her. She gave the branch manager a letter Mr Gorrett had written to her the previous day, as an example of this.
CXJ then met with the sole director of Wynn Fraser, Mr Gray, She produced further digital evidence that she had been sexually harassed by Mr Gorrett, such as text messages and an image of a sexual nature.
Mr Gray immediately met with Mr Gorrett. During their conversation, Mr Gorrett accepted that he sent the text messages and image to CXJ. At this point Mr Gray made the decision to dismiss Mr Gorrett.
At the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) investigation, Mr Gray conceded he should have organised a formal disciplinary meeting. As Mr Gorrett admitted that he had written the letter and sent the text messages and image to CXJ., Mr Gray decided there was little point in holding a formal disciplinary meeting. The ERA accepted that Mr Gray had sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr Gorrett had sexually harassed CXJ.
However, there were significant defects in the process followed by Wynn Fraser, which resulted in Mr Gorrett being treated unfairly. Mr Gorrett was not given advance notice of the meeting or what the meeting was about. Mr Gorrett was not aware of the allegations prior to the meeting and not provided with a genuine opportunity to provide a response to the allegations before the decision to dismiss was made.
Decision
The ERA found that Mr Gorrett was unjustifiably dismissed, and compensation could be started at $12,000 plus one week’s lost wages for length of time to conduct a fair process to dismiss him. A penalty of $500 was awarded against the employer for lack of procedural fairness.
However, it determined that Mr Gorrett’s conduct towards CXJ was not only blameworthy but wholly contributed to the situation. The ERA concluded this was a rare case where a 100 percent reduction in remedies was warranted.
NOTE: A 100% reduction in remedies was very unusual for cases brought to the ERA prior to the amended Employment Relations Act taking effect February 21, 2026.
Key takeaways
While the substance or facts of the situation justified the employee being dismissed, employers must still follow a procedurally fair process in dismissing an employee - – particularly their own procedures!
Despite the amended Employment Relations Act allowing remedies for Serious Misconduct being able to be reduced by 100% to nil, Good Faith provisions will continue to apply and may not prevent a finding of unjustified dismissal.
The financial consequences of getting a process wrong may now be significantly reduced in Serious Misconduct cases.
Please refer separate section discussing the application of amendments in detail and what this means for employers.
For more information and specialist advice in this area, please contact me at michaelp@businesscanterbury.co.nz.