![STEWART v OPEN COUNTRY DAIRY LIMITED (3265479), OPEN COUNTRY DAIRY LIMITED v STEWART (3275619) [2025] NZERA 330 - A penalty determination was made.](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
A penalty determination was made. Employment relationship problem [2] Simon Stewart alleges he was unjustifiably dismissed by Open Country Dairy Limited (OCDL) from his position as Group Market Manager.
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. Employment relationship problem [2] Simon Stewart alleges he was unjustifiably dismissed by Open Country Dairy Limited (OCDL) from his position as Group Market Manager.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. He says the decision to make him redundant was predetermined because there had already been resignations in the team negating the need to reduce the overall team numbers.
The Authority found a constructive dismissal was established. In this case Mr Paetz was not dismissed by Solly's, he resigned.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Ms Olliver and Ms Taylor (the applicants) say they were unjustifiably dismissed from their employment on 29 December 2023 and unjustifiably disadvantaged by the way the employer went about dealing with...
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. The investigation meeting commenced in Hamilton on 19 February 2025 to hear the remainder of the evidence.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). However, she was presented with an unsigned letter of resignation which had been prepared by Hopkins and dated 8 November 2023.
In Lekeisha Ramsay v National Storage Ltd [2025] NZERA 269, the ERA found a probationary period dismissal was unjustified where the employer relied on inaccurate absence data and did not fairly assess suitability through training, guidance, and genuine consideration of the employee's feedback. The ERA ordered $9,000 compensation (after a 10% contribution reduction) plus $14,040.40 gross lost wages and holiday pay, with KiwiSaver to be calculated. Good faith penalty claims under s 134 and aiding and abetting claims were dismissed.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. The Authority found the employer has failed to demonstrate it met the requirements under s 103A for employer when dismissing an employee.