Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries | ERA New Zealand
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 have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
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.
Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search
Showing 1-8 of 128 articles in Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries | ERA New Zealand
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 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 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 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...
"A cook was told to 'bugger off' and leave the premises amid police concerns about marijuana plants on the owner's property. The ERA found this was a dismissal and awarded $13,520 lost wages, $10,000 compensation, and $249.60 holiday pay (plus interest)."
ERA held the employee was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed when the employer told her not to return to work until mid-January and refused to pay her contracted hours. Orders included $25,000 compensation, $8,320 reimbursement, wage and holiday pay arrears with interest, and penalties split between the employee and the Crown.
ERA found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed after being summarily terminated and trespassed without any fair investigation into allegations he took cash from the till. The employer's separate claim that he breached a duty of fidelity was dismissed. Orders included $15,000 compensation (after a 50% contribution reduction), wage arrears and holiday pay (to be calculated), and a $3,000 penalty payable to the Crown.
The Authority ordered remedies, including compensation and/or payment of entitlements. [40] Then in a follow up email at 10:49 am on 26 September 2024 CVC confirmed its