ClickCease

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.


Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Cases

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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search
Showing 81-88 of 246 articles in Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries | ERA New Zealand
ZiGen Wong v NZAT Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 193 - employee status found despite no visa; $18,187.50 wage arrears + $1,455 holiday pay; constructive dismissal upheld

ZiGen Wong worked for NZAT Construction without a valid work visa and was later denied wages and employment protections on the basis that the arrangement was not lawful employment. He claimed employee status, arrears and constructive dismissal.

Tracy Alpar v Bookieland Limited [2026] NZERA 191 - unsigned seasonal fixed term not enforceable; dismissal by WhatsApp; $12,000 compensation and $14,000 reimbursement

Tracy Alpar worked for Bookieland under an unsigned seasonal fixed-term arrangement and was later told through WhatsApp that her employment had ended. The ERA had to decide whether the purported fixed term complied with the statutory requirements and whether the termination was justified.

Gaetan Duvaux v Mega Limited [2026] NZERA 182 - redundancy dismissal unjustified on process; pre-selection and withheld scoring; $8,000 compensation plus three months' pay ordered

Gaetan Duvaux was made redundant by Mega after a selection process in which scoring and comparative information were not fully disclosed and the employee argued the outcome had effectively been chosen in advance. The business case itself was not the only issue: the fairness of selection and consultation was central.

Craig (Andrew) Campbell v Qube Ports NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 174 - interim reinstatement ordered after medical incapacity dismissal; asthma/dust exposure dispute

A Port of Tauranga stevedore was dismissed for medical incapacity after an asthma flare during dusty palm-kernel work. He sought interim reinstatement, arguing there was a serious dispute about the actual exposure risk, his capacity for modified duties and the employer's consideration of alternatives.

John Pio v Strautmann Hopkins [2026] NZERA 164 - genuine redundancy but rushed consultation made dismissal unjustified

Regional sales manager John Pio was made redundant after Strautmann Hopkins lost the distribution licence underpinning its business. The redundancy had a genuine commercial basis, but Pio was given little warning, very limited time to seek advice and no meaningful opportunity to explore transfer or redeployment.

Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Clive Bryham, a long-serving field operations manager, was dismissed after Omexom alleged he mishandled an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report and exposed the business to reputational risk with a key client. He sought interim reinstatement pending final determination of his dismissal and disadvantage grievances.

Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.

Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and entitlement breaches established

Yang (Helen) Feng worked for Dong Construction in circumstances involving a disputed trial period and claims for unpaid employment entitlements. The ERA examined whether the trial clause could lawfully prevent a dismissal grievance and what wages or other payments remained owing.

Browse topics