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.
![Noel Jr Camacho v North Beach Limited [2025] NZERA 824 - 90-day trial clause held ineffective because probation and trial terms conflicted; employee may bring PG](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
North Beach relied on a 90-day trial clause to argue Noel Camacho could not bring an unjustified-dismissal grievance, but the same employment agreement also contained a probation clause that conflicted with the trial wording.
Healthcare assistant Shubanghi Kaushal was suspended and then summarily dismissed after an incident the employer characterised as serious misconduct. The ERA examined the incident in context, an existing final warning and whether dismissal was within the range open to a fair and reasonable employer.
LGY sought interim reinstatement after being dismissed by a school board while the substantive personal grievance remained unresolved. The Board relied on serious allegations and workplace concerns, while LGY argued there was a strong arguable dismissal case and that reinstatement could operate pending a final hearing.
Shania Mortimer was dismissed by Auckland Steam 'N' Dry under a purported trial period. The dispute concerned whether the trial clause was legally effective, whether any dismissal process occurred, and the employer's wage and record-keeping compliance.
KMW was selected for redundancy by ZIB Digital after a process the employee said had been predetermined and gave consultation no real prospect of changing the outcome. The ERA examined the business rationale, the information provided and whether the consultation was genuine.
Haochen Guo was suspended, complained of bullying and was later made redundant while absent on ACC leave. The ERA examined the fairness of the suspension and workplace treatment as well as whether the purported redundancy was genuine and properly consulted on.
OCO resigned after being suspended and put through a disciplinary process by ZUA. The case centred on whether the suspension and investigation were fair and whether the employer's cumulative conduct was serious enough to make the resignation a constructive dismissal.
After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.
