New Zealand unfair dismissal (unjustified dismissal) case summaries from the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), explaining key facts, outcomes, and lessons for employees and employers.
These unfair dismissal (unjustified dismissal) case summaries cover Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decisions from across New Zealand. Each case highlights the facts, the Authority's reasoning, and the outcome, so you can see what tends to help or hurt a dismissal justification.
If you are dealing with a dismissal dispute, these examples can help you understand common errors in process, the standard of reasonableness applied, and typical remedies where a dismissal is found to be unjustified.
![LJB v EBD [2026] NZERA 78 - resigned employee sent home mid-notice with no process; dismissal unjustified; $16,500 compensation plus $9,000 penalties for withheld wages and missing time records](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
A marketing and events assistant resigned with one month's notice, but was called into a surprise meeting and told to clear her desk and leave immediately. The ERA held this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative (a 'sending away'), not an agreed early finish, and the employer could not...
A part-time pool receptionist/manager at a Hastings health and wellness centre was never given a written employment agreement and was never paid for 32 hours worked. After he asked for clarity about his pay and roster, the employer stopped responding, removed his staff access, and asked for his...
Husband-and-wife chefs were dismissed from an Auckland waterfront cafe after an escalating conflict with new management. The ERA found the employer did not investigate properly or give either employee a real opportunity to respond. Both personal grievances were upheld and $95,448 was ordered (lost wages and compensation), payable within 28 days. Costs were reserved.
The ERA held the employee's dismissal was unjustified because the disciplinary process had significant defects, including an early stand-down before his views were sought, undisclosed staff discussions, and concern about pre-determination. Even though serious misconduct findings were substantively open on the evidence, the employee was awarded $12,000 compensation after a 20% contribution reduction. The employee was also ordered to repay the employer proven costs for unauthorised private work and purchases, with labour to be recalculated under Appendix A and final pay to be offset.
ERA held the employer could not rely on a one-year fixed-term clause because the statutory requirements were not met (no genuine reasons agreed and reasons not recorded). Ending employment without giving the employee a chance to comment was unjustified. Orders: $15,600 gross lost wages and $12,000 compensation (costs reserved).
ERA held the employee's redundancy dismissal was unjustified: Pamu relied on automation efficiencies but did not clearly justify why the AP Team Leader role was surplus, ran a short consultation, and mishandled redeployment communications. Orders: $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 net lost wages.
ERA held a night shift recovery support worker was unjustifiably dismissed after video evidence of sleeping was relied on, in circumstances where night staff had a legitimate expectation they could sleep during combined breaks and management had not clearly changed that practice. Reinstatement was declined, but the...
ERA held a fixed-term seasonal worker was unjustifiably dismissed for redundancy because the employer decided to select him for redundancy before meeting him and did not consult. Although the business case to disestablish one fixed-term role was accepted as genuine, the selection process was...
