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.
![Julie Curtis v Affordable UK Caravans and Parts Limited [2026] NZERA 46 - constructive dismissal after employer refused wages and delayed return; $25,000 compensation](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Julie Curtis had a regular 20-hour week with Affordable UK Caravans when the employer told her there was no work until mid-January and refused to pay her contracted hours. She treated the prolonged exclusion from paid work as a serious breach and resigned.
Wendy Darrell's dispute with Canterbury Vehicle concerned the ending of her employment and associated employment entitlements. The ERA considered whether the employer's conduct met the justification standard and what compensation or payments were required for the breaches established.
Construction workers Nan Jia and Huachao Hou alleged FX NZ made unlawful rent deductions from wages and failed to pay public-holiday, annual-leave and other minimum entitlements. Their case combined employment-standard claims with personal-grievance issues about the employer's treatment of them.
Four workers at Miaodi's Laundromat alleged their employment was ended without a fair process and that significant wage and holiday entitlements had not been paid. The proceeding also involved personal liability and penalties for minimum employment-standard breaches.
Next Generation Homes stopped providing Mr Maiorenko with work and ceased communicating with him after he queried pay and future work. The case concerned whether that conduct itself ended the employment relationship and what wage arrears remained outstanding.
Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.
Ms Ma's short restaurant employment ended after management announced reduced hours and a disputed phone call, followed by her omission from the next roster. The employer said she was casual and had abandoned employment.
Mr Zhang paid a $3,730 premium to obtain restaurant employment and later accumulated substantial unpaid wages. He resigned after the employment relationship deteriorated and argued the employer's breaches had forced that resignation.
