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.
![Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Ltd [2022] NZERA 646 - 90-day trial invalid before start, unjustified dismissal, penalties](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
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.
The ERA first had to decide who employed a worker hired through a Facebook job ad for a firewood operation (Ignite Firewood). The respondents argued the worker was employed by a third party supervisor as a sole trader, or by a company. The Authority held Darcee Gosling was the employer and...
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.
A meatworks employee was suspended immediately after a workplace incident without being told the employer's concerns or given a chance to respond. At a later meeting the employer gave her the option to resign or be dismissed; the ERA held the resignation was strongly induced and the termination...
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.
