HR Insights: Abandonment Case Law Development

Rix v Rotorua Quarry Ltd – Lessons on Abandonment of Employment

A recent case of Rix v Rotorua Quarry Ltd [[2025] NZERA 152; 13/03/25; G O’Sullivan] highlights the importance of an employer following abandonment of employment processes as set out in an employee’s employment agreement. While this case is also about a claim for unjustified disadvantage and unlawful deductions from his final pay, I will focus on the abandonment issue.

Background

An altercation and an injury

Mr. Rix was employed by Rotorua Quarry Ltd (Rotorua Quarry) as a workshop manager until his employment was terminated on 4 October 2023.

On 22 September 2022, an incident occurred with his direct report, Mr. Maisey, a director at Rotorua Quarry, where a verbal argument lead to some physical pushing. This incident worsened an arm injury Mr. Rix had. On 24 September 2022, he provided Rotorua Quarry with a medical certificate that required he take leave until 23 October 2022. A witness did not make clear who was to blame for the incident.

Rotorua Quarry rejected any knowledge of a workplace accident occurring. Although it accepted that there was an altercation, they sought for Mr Rix‘s contributory conduct to be taken into account, finding him to be the main culprit.

Mr Rix reiterated his sick leave on 26 September 2022. On 27 September 2022, Mr Maisey texted Mr Rix asking about his whereabouts and asked for an update. Mr Rix forwarded his medical certificate again on 3 October 2022. Mr Maisey advised the company that Mr Rix had quit his job, and to pay him out and take him off payroll.

Mr Rix stressed that he didn’t quit his job, only that he would return his phone and key. The next day, Mr Rix received a letter from Mr Maisey terminating his employment by reason of abandonment.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found that the only reason Mr Rix was terminated from his employment was due to abandonment, rather than the altercation. It found Rotorua Quarry could not rely on such an abandonment, as it failed to follow the clause in its employment agreement requiring three days’ absence without consent. Mr Maisey also took no steps to contact during his period of absence.

The Decision

Dismissal without basis

 The Authority found that Rotorua Quarry unjustifiably dismissed from his employment. He was awarded:

• $22,197.37 in lost wages

• $1,920.61 for unlawful deductions from his final pay

• $18,000 as compensation for hurt and humiliation

Key Takeaways

Follow your own agreement

• Employers must strictly follow the abandonment of employment provisions in an employment agreement.

Make reasonable contact

• “Reasonable efforts” to contact an absent employee must be made before treating the absence as abandonment (calls, texts, emails, and follow-up letters after the abandonment period ends).

Medical leave is not abandonment

• An employee’s absence supported by a medical certificate cannot be regarded as abandonment!
  
  

Conclusion

A timely warning

This case reinforces that employers cannot shortcut abandonment provisions. Failing to follow the agreed process can expose businesses to significant liability, including lost wages and compensation.

We can help

Navigating abandonment of employment issues requires care and a sound understanding of your obligations. Our HR Advisory team can help you apply best practice and minimise risk. 👉 Contact Michael at michaelp@cecc.org.nz for tailored support.