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.
![JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - dismissal over mandatory training modules unjustified](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to complete mandatory online business modules after a disciplinary process run partly by overseas management. He challenged both the substantive basis for treating the failure as dismissible conduct and the fairness of the procedure.
Ms Levi-Adams was dismissed by Greene after a process in which important material was not provided to her until after the termination decision. The ERA examined whether she had been given the information and opportunity to respond that a fair and reasonable employer was required to provide.
RMD claimed she had been dismissed by LWQ and also relied on allegations said to amount to protected disclosures. The ERA examined the communications surrounding the end of employment and whether the alleged disclosures met the statutory requirements for protected-disclosure treatment.
DD Group Holdings relied on a 90-day trial clause to dismiss Kelly Wilkins, but she had already begun paid training before the employment agreement containing the clause was signed. Her own conduct was also relevant to remedies.
Mr Canales accepted a part-time window-installer job with Thermashield but missed his intended first day because of a migraine. The case turned on whether an employment relationship had already been formed and whether later text messages brought it to an end.
A truck driver said Transport (Waimate) had effectively sent him away after a difficult meeting and then prevented a normal return to work. The employer maintained that he had resigned, making the central issue whether its actions objectively amounted to dismissal.
Mr Cully resigned from The Work Shop Limited and alleged the employer's breaches were serious enough to amount to constructive dismissal. He also sought unpaid wages and compensation, requiring the ERA to determine whether his resignation was legally attributable to the employer's conduct.
Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.
