Employee alleges he resigned due to unsafe workplace, disadvantageous treatment
New Zealand’s Employment Court has granted applications – sought by an employee who had resigned due to an allegedly unsafe workplace – to waive the filing fee payable on the court challenge and prohibit the publication of his name.
The employee alleged that he resigned because the employer took no steps or insufficient steps to address his concerns. He argued that his manager’s treatment subjected him to disadvantage and forced him to leave to seek relief from bullying.
The employer countered that it took reasonable steps and justified actions in the circumstances, given that the exchanges between the employee and his manager did not amount to bullying.
The employer asserted that it investigated the employee’s bullying complaint to conclude that the workplace was safe. The employer added that it reviewed the disciplinary process and the finding that the employee had failed to follow a lawful instruction before determining that the instruction was lawful and reasonable and the investigation was fair.
On 9 December 2025, in XDC v Allied Investments Limited [2025] NZERA 798, the New Zealand Employment Relations Authority (NZERA) found that the employee resigned because he felt targeted and bullied in a workplace that he considered unsafe.
NZERA noted that the employee disagreed that the regional manager could determine another employee’s roster placement and believed that the manager unreasonably and unlawfully instructed him to cover the other employee’s shift.
Next, NZERA decided that the employer did not constructively dismiss the employee or breach its duty of good faith or fair dealing. NZERA added that the employer reasonably adopted the investigators’ conclusions, including their finding that the employee was not bullied, and reasonably withdrew its warning about unauthorised working from home.
Lastly, NZERA determined that the employer’s treatment of the employee, including its delay in investigating another employee’s complaint until after the completion of the other investigations, did not result in an unjustifiable disadvantage.
NZERA granted a non-publication order in the employee’s favour.
The employee challenged NZERA’s determination and applied for a waiver of the filing fee payable on the challenge and a prohibition against the publication of his name.
On 9 January 2026, in XDC v Allied Investments Limited [2026] NZEmpC 1, the Employment Court of New Zealand deemed it appropriate to issue an interim order to prohibit the publication of the employee’s name and identifying details, pending a further court order. The court explained that such an issuance would essentially preserve NZERA’s orders.
Next, the court considered it appropriate to waive the filing fee in the circumstances. The court accepted that the applicant could not pay the fee. The court acknowledged that the applicant was unemployed and receiving legal aid for the proceedings.
Lastly, the court awarded no costs.
