Reinstatement is emerging as an increasingly common outcome in personal grievance cases, reaffirming its status as the primary remedy under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The Act requires the Employment Relations Authority or Court to provide for reinstatement wherever it is practicable and reasonable, placing the burden on employers to prove otherwise.
The outcome of ongoing case Du Fall v Mokoia Intermediate School Board will provide insight into reinstatement’s viability despite a breakdown in the employment relationship.
Practicable and reasonable – what does this mean?
Practicability goes beyond whether reinstatement is possible – it asks if the employment relationship can realistically be restored.
Reasonableness involves considering the impact on the employee, employer, and any affected third parties.
Finally, the Authority or Court turns to consider the overall interests of justice.
The employer bears the burden of proving reinstatement is impracticable. Reinstatement may be ordered alongside other remedies, and factors like time out of the role and avoiding litigation have previously influenced decisions.
Du Fall v The Mokoia Intermediate School Board
In the case of Du Fall v Mokoia Intermediate School Board, in April 2025 Ms Du Fall was dismissed from her role as the school’s executive officer on the grounds of incompatibility.
She raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal and sought interim and permanent reinstatement in the Authority. The Authority declined her application, and she filed an urgent challenge to the determination before the Employment Court.
The school argued that reinstatement was impracticable because:
- there had been a breakdown in trust
- there were threats of mass resignations
- disruption to school operations
- the executive officer role no longer existed.
The Employment Court made an interim order for reinstatement on the following grounds:
- Ms Du Fall had a good relationship with the school, previous boards and principals for 20 years before her dismissal.
- It was possible for Ms Du Fall to work remotely which would help to manage reintegration.
- Hearing dates would not be until after February 2026, meaning Ms Du Fall would be without income for a long period if she was not reinstated.
- It was not reasonable to have her reinstated to the payroll-only, given the school’s limited financial resources.
Implications
Reinstatement has been rare in the past but is becoming increasingly common – with this case highlighting its importance as a primary remedy.
The judgment also reflects the reality that alternative employment can be difficult to secure in the current market.
Ms Du Fall expressed concern that her career prospects would suffer without reinstatement – a sentiment echoed in earlier cases such as Canterbury Hotel etc Union v Chancery Tavern Ltd, where Chief Judge Horn noted reinstatement’s heightened value during economic downturns.
Court dates for the substantive Hearing in the Du Fall case are expected after February 2026, when the Court will determine whether Ms Du Fall moves from interim to permanent reinstatement.
- Author Nina Webb.
