![TONG v SHEFFIELD STEEL SERVICES LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 460 - employer conduct caused constructive dismissal](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Mr Tong's claims against Sheffield Steel arose after workplace difficulties, attempts to place him with another employer and the eventual end of his employment. He alleged both unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.
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.
Mr Tong's claims against Sheffield Steel arose after workplace difficulties, attempts to place him with another employer and the eventual end of his employment. He alleged both unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.
Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.
Southshore Marine attempted to rely on a 90-day trial when dismissing Mr Gillard after concerns about his work. The timing of when employment actually commenced and the complete absence of a fair performance, conduct or capacity process were central issues.
WRW resigned after McCarthy Enterprises proposed changes to her work and the relationship deteriorated. The ERA had to decide whether the employer's conduct was sufficiently serious and causative to convert that resignation into a constructive dismissal and whether any wage loss was proved.
KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.
Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
Da Hai Investment treated Ms LeBreton as a casual worker despite an ongoing pattern of part-time work and an original offer suggesting minimum hours. The dispute covered the true status of the relationship, how it ended, sick leave, lost remuneration and statutory breaches.
Ms Brennan's employment with Stella 2020 ended on 30 July 2024 without a fair disciplinary or dismissal process. The employer did not participate effectively in the ERA investigation, which proceeded on the evidence available to the Authority.