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.
![Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2023] NZERA 568 - compliance order declined after late payment; further costs awarded](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
After an earlier unjustified dismissal determination and costs award, the employee applied for a compliance order because the employer and director had not paid. By the time the application was decided the outstanding sums had been paid, so no compliance order was made, but the Authority ordered...
In Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376, the ERA found the employer unjustifiably dismissed a security guard while he was isolating due to Covid-19. The claimed redundancy was not genuine and there was no fair process. The Authority awarded $15,000 compensation, $1,893.86 lost earnings, and $1,458.00 for notice.
The personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was upheld. The employer could not rely on a 90 day trial period because the written agreement was not signed before the employee started work. Compensation was awarded in the sum of $4,000 for hurt and humiliation (after a 50%...
In Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52, the ERA found an unjustified dismissal after the employer wrongly relied on a probation / "90 day" misunderstanding after the probation period had already expired, and failed to pay notice and holiday pay. Remedies included $20,000 compensation and reimbursement of lost wages.
ERA found the employee was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed after the employer raised performance concerns by text and threatened she would not make it out of a '3-month trial' when no trial clause existed. Orders included $3,600 reimbursement, $8,000 compensation, and a $2,000 penalty, and the employer's $10,000 counter-claim was dismissed.
In Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Ltd [2022] NZERA 646 the ERA held the 90-day trial clause was invalid because employment had already been accepted before the agreement was signed. The dismissal was unjustified. The Authority awarded $12,692.28 gross lost wages, $15,000 compensation, and $1,000 penalties for record / agreement breaches.
In Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304, the ERA held the redundancy dismissal was unjustified due to a lack of consultation, lack of relevant information, and failure to properly explore alternatives and redeployment. The Authority awarded $17,000 compensation and reserved costs.
In Neil Armstrong v Surplus Brokers Ltd [2019] NZERA 235, the ERA found a casual employee was unjustifiably dismissed during a period of engagement. The Authority awarded $9,000 compensation (after 10% reduction for contributory conduct) and imposed a $1,000 penalty for failing to provide an intended employment agreement.
