The first hearing centred around Roy’s employment with Carrington Resort Jade LP which ended on April 30, 2022, under contentious circumstances.

Roy had been promoted several times and was regarded as a competent chef, but faced allegations from her colleagues that led to a series of events culminating in her departure which she deemed was unlawful.

When Roy took Carrington to the ERA for several breaches of the Employment Relations Act and unjustified dismissal, she won an award of $24,000 for distress, along with wage arrears and remuneration.

Carrington Resort challenged the decision, disputing both the substantive findings and the costs awarded to Roy.

The core issue addressed at the recent Employment Court hearing was whether Roy resigned voluntarily or if the circumstances amounted to a constructive dismissal.

The court heard evidence from multiple witnesses, including William Tan, the general manager of Carrington Estate, and Sanket Shelar, the head chef at the time.

Roy also provided testimony that Tan made serious allegations against her, including poor work ethic and mistreatment of colleagues. She claimed Tan’s accusations were baseless and that she was told to go home for three days while he decided on her fate.

Contrarily, Tan asserted that Roy resigned during a heated discussion, where she expressed her frustration and voluntarily left the premises.

The events of April 25, 2022, were pivotal.

Roy had been called to Tan’s office via email to discuss the alleged complaints from other staff members.

The meeting lasted six minutes and when Tan made allegations about drug use, Roy raised her voice. The meeting ended abruptly, with conflicting accounts of whether Roy was suspended or if she resigned in anger.

“It was after that that Ms Roy says she said, ‘What do you want me to do? Resign?’ She says that Mr Tan said, ‘Stacey, it is up to you if you want to resign’ and that at that point, she got up and walked out of the meeting,” Judge Joanna Holden summarised in her decision.

Shelar gave evidence that when Roy came out of the office, she went into the kitchen and began shouting at people “F***all of youse, if no one wants to work with f***ing Stacey, f***ing Stacey will go.”

Roy then packed her belongings and left.

The court determined that whether an employee has resigned is based on an objective assessment of their words and actions.

Judge Holden concluded Roy’s actions on April 25, 2022, indicated a resignation rather than a dismissal and her immediate departure and the removal of personal belongings supported this conclusion.

The court did not find sufficient evidence to support Carrington Resort’s actions amounted to constructive dismissal and there was no indication that Tan intended to coerce Roy into resigning.

Judge Holden ordered Roy to repay $18,000 of the compensation she was previously rewarded but did not order repayment on any other costs due to Carrington’s prior lack of engagement with the ERA.

In a separate case, the Employment Court held another hearing for a challenge by Carrington to ERA findings with previous employee Iva Grant.

Grant initially brought claims to the ERA, asserting her status as a permanent employee for Carrington Resort Jade LP and Carrington Holiday Park Jade LP, among other grievances. She claimed outstanding holiday pay and argued that her dismissal was unjustified.

The authority ruled in her favour, awarding her remedies and penalties against the plaintiffs for obstructing and delaying the investigation.

The pivotal incident leading to Grant’s dismissal occurred on May 18, 2022. After a disagreement with Tan over the time taken to clean a house, tensions escalated. Grant reported feeling unfairly accused and sought a meeting with Tan to resolve the issue, however, Tan refused to engage and subsequently dismissed Grant, issuing a terse letter without providing reasons. He also issued a trespass notice against her.

Despite Grant being labelled a casual employee in her employment agreements, the Employment Court found substantial evidence, including regular work patterns and rosters, proving that Grant was a permanent part-time employee throughout her tenure.

Judge Corkill found that Grant was unjustifiably dismissed and upheld the original determination of the ERA and ordered the payment of $51,467 owed to Grant be released.

Grant told NZME she was very pleased with the decision and what employees were going through was beyond comprehension.

She said she was grateful that the court had seen through what she believed were “lies”, “deceit” and “attempts at bullying and intimidation”.

“I am grateful that the high court saw through the attempts at delaying the court processes and wasting court time. I am grateful that justice has been served,” she said.

Messages left for Tan by NZME were not returned.

Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.