Bunnings Warehouse employee Emily Grinsted will be paid her bonus and compensation by the company following an ERA ruling. Photo / NZPA
A Bunnings Warehouse human resources manager often received complaints about her communication style.
But instead of disciplinary action, the company used it as a “coaching opportunity” and then refused to pay Emily Grinsted a bonus without telling her because her work was deemed unsatisfactory.
Now the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has ordered Bunnings to pay Grinsted $11,280 in bonuses and $5000 in compensation after ruling she had been unjustifiably disadvantaged.
Grinsted is Bunnings’ people and culture manager for New Zealand, reporting to Bunnings’ Melbourne-based people operations general manager, Rana Obeid.
Grinsted started working at Bunnings’ Auckland head office in March 2025 and remains employed by the company.
Her role involved leading other people and culture partners in New Zealand and facilitating a broad range of human resources (HR) matters here, including employment relations and bargaining with stakeholders.
But ultimately the Melbourne head office exercises ultimate control over the business’s operations in both Australia and New Zealand.
The authority heard Grinsted and Obeid’s working relationship started well. But shortly after Grinsted’s employment started, Obeid began to receive feedback from stakeholders who said her approach was not consistent with the corporate culture at Bunnings.
Members of the management team had also expressed concerns regarding Grinsted’s communication style because she had been heard openly criticising her colleagues and the business’ ways of working, particularly in HR.
Obeid told the authority that she consistently raised the feedback with Grinsted in their weekly one-to-ones and in their scheduled reviews.
She encouraged Grinsted to engage with her colleagues in a more open-minded way, and to be more courteous in her communication and believed the matters were best dealt with through informal coaching.
Obeid said Grinsted initially expressed a willingness to change but Obeid continued to receive negative feedback about Grinsted’s communication style from senior leaders in the business.
Things came to a head in August 2025 when Grinstead attended a company conference in Melbourne.
During this time Grinsted, Obeid and Zoe Gill, general manager finance business partnering, and New Zealand country manager, Melissa Haines, met for a discussion about a potential restructure for the New Zealand business.
Some of Haines’ team would be affected by the proposed change and Grinsted’s role in the meeting was to support both Gill and Haines with the discussion, to help move the process forward.
Grinsted accepted she was frustrated that she had not been included in discussions about the change earlier and she considered Gill did not seem able to answer Haines’ questions about how the process would work, despite having been briefed on the process by members of Obeid’s team.
Obeid told the authority that after the meeting Gill told her she felt “attacked” by Grinsted’s approach and she didn’t feel that Grinsted was supportive.
Obeid and Grinsted met to discuss the feedback that had been provided by Gill.
Grinsted told the authority she was furious with Gill’s comments and that during the meeting Obeid used an aggressive tone and said “I don’t know what to do with you” and “I can’t connect with you”.
According to a recently released decision, Grinsted said Obeid suggested she was disengaged and not the right fit for the organisation, which caused her to become upset.
Obeid denied suggesting that Grinsted’s employment should end, that she was not a good fit or that she had run out of options.
At the end of the conversation, Grinsted said words to the effect that she “should just be given a package”, which was a reference to being paid as part of a settlement for terminating her employment.
Grinsted said she asked for this in response to what she felt was a clear suggestion by Obeid that she was no longer wanted in her role. The meeting was ended by Obeid, who suggested they revisit the discussion at a later date.
After mediation between Bunnings and Grinsted was unsuccessful, she filed a claim with the ERA.
Grinsted claimed she was unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment by the way Bunnings approached criticisms of her work.
She further claimed Bunnings had not allowed her to perform her duties, breached an obligation to give her a pay rise, failed to pay her a bonus and had not complied with its duty of good faith and the parties’ employment agreement.
But authority member Matthew Piper ruled Grinsted was not unjustifiably disadvantaged by Obeid’s approach to complaints about her and Grinsted’s claim that she was entitled to a salary increase was not established.
Grinsted did not want to comment to NZME.
Piper did rule, however, that Bunnings unjustifiably disadvantaged Grinsted by not giving her a bonus.
Grinsted was entitled to participate in Bunnings’ discretionary annual short term incentive plan (STI), which was based on the financial year July 1 to June 30.
The STI comprises company and individual performance components that are equally weighted, and any payments are prorated based on the time worked over the year. The individual component is determined based on the employee’s annual performance rating, which then operates as a “gate” to participation in the scheme.
The performance review cycle at Bunnings takes place in June or July each year. Bunnings did not engage with Grinsted regarding her performance rating during those months.
Bunnings’ position was that Grinsted was not entitled to payment under the incentive scheme because she had not achieved or exceeded expectations.
Obeid said she had raised issues on multiple occasions with her about her communication style and working relationships but that her behaviour did not improve.
Accordingly, Bunnings did not take a step required to assess Grinsted’s eligibility for a bonus.
Grinsted learned in September 2025 that she was not receiving a bonus because she did not receive either the money or a letter confirming her rating as other employees around her did.
“A fair and reasonable employer would follow its own policies, particularly where they relate to remuneration, and would have allocated Ms Grinsted a performance rating,” Piper said.
“Failing to take this step was not something a fair and reasonable employer could have done and, in this regard, Ms Grinsted was unjustifiably disadvantaged in her employment.”
Despite the events in Melbourne and the subsequent exchange of correspondence between solicitors, the relationship between Grinsted and Bunnings was not entirely negative, Piper said.
“Grinsted had achieved strong results in some areas of her role and had developed relationships across the business, including with Ms Haines.
“Although there were concerns about her communication style and approach, they were never treated as formal issues and were instead treated as coaching opportunities.”
Piper said based on evidence during the authority’s investigation, it was more likely than not that Grinsted would have been treated as having, to use the language of the STI scheme, “areas to improve” and that she may have been awarded up to 75% of the individual performance component available under the STI scheme, which was $11,820.
A Bunnings spokesperson said it valued maintaining a safe and supportive working environment for its team.
“As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate to provide comment.”
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.