![XU v ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 502 - A penalty determination was made.](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
A penalty determination was made. Abhyudaya denies that Ms Xu was unjustifiably dismissed or unjustifiably disadvantaged and claims that she was justifiably dismissed following a fair redundancy procedure.
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.
A penalty determination was made. Abhyudaya denies that Ms Xu was unjustifiably dismissed or unjustifiably disadvantaged and claims that she was justifiably dismissed following a fair redundancy procedure.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Lanquan's employees increased to five when Mr Shen was employed from (at least) October 2023 until his dismissal on 6 August 2024.2 Lanquan had six employees during the three days Ms Wei worked in...
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. An investigation meeting was set down for 20 May 2025 in Napier.
A costs determination was made. A year into her employment, Living Waters invited Ms Sutter to a catch up meeting and told her that her Practice Nurse role was being made redundant.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Mr Lazaro says that in a meeting on 4 December 2023 WCC dismissed him.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. the employer says it did not dismiss Mrs Petersen and her employment was ending on 31 July 2024 as she was going overseas.
A costs determination was made. After further confirmation from Ms Hirst's representative, the single issue for investigation was one of unjustified direct dismissal.
A costs determination was made. Letters and emails [17] the employer's first formal communication raising its concerns was on 21 November 2023 when Mr Pitkethley emailed Mr Lyons a letter inviting him to a meeting on 23 November 2023 to discuss concerns about his absences.