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.
![Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Payal worked for JB Hospitality in a relationship involving unpaid wages and alleged premium payments. She resigned after the employment problems persisted and argued that the employer's breaches were sufficiently serious to amount to constructive dismissal.
Harry Sampson's proceeding against Lyttelton Port Company raised a preliminary 90-day time-limit issue before the merits of his personal grievance could be investigated. The employer argued the grievance was out of time; Mr Sampson relied on the communications by which he said it had been raised.
Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.
George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.
Hurikawa was abruptly told he was 'finished' by Walton Mountain without a stated reason, warning or opportunity to respond. The ERA therefore had to assess a direct verbal termination against the minimum substantive and procedural requirements in s 103A.
JHJ challenged a dismissal by IXX in a proceeding subject to temporary non-publication. The ERA considered whether the employer had substantive and procedural justification and what lost remuneration and distress compensation should follow if the grievance succeeded.
Jimmy Nelson was dismissed by The Digger Man after repeated attendance problems and unexplained absences. The employer had genuine concerns, but the issue was whether it gave him a final, fair opportunity to understand the seriousness of the latest incidents and explain himself before termination.
Chef Edmundo Marcelo was dismissed by Golden Bulls after a failed food-safety inspection. The employer had substantive concerns about the incident, but the ERA examined whether those concerns were fairly put to him and whether the disciplinary decision was reached through a proper process.
