Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries | ERA New Zealand
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 have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
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.
Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search
Showing 193-200 of 246 articles in Unfair Dismissal (Unjustified Dismissal) Case Summaries | ERA New Zealand
Mr Kalkat was placed in work through Easy Recruitment and later told the placement employer considered his performance inadequate. He alleged that his employment had been ended without a fair process and sought compensation and lost wages for unjustified dismissal.
South Pole treated Xinhua Hao as having agreed to resign, despite his repeated denials, then withheld work and continued pressing the resignation dispute. The ERA found those actions caused an unjustified constructive dismissal.
Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart after alleging he had prepared food for himself at the workplace while recorded as working, in a dispute that also involved allegations of theft. The ERA examined whether the evidence and disciplinary response could justify dismissal.
Brother Coffee closed its cafe and made Ms Stillman redundant. The ERA accepted there were genuine commercial and personal reasons to close but examined when the decision was actually made and whether consultation occurred before the outcome became fixed.
Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.
Mr Williams was told by email on 17 March 2024 that he had been made redundant immediately. He had not previously been told his job was in jeopardy, no supporting information accompanied the decision, and there had been no genuine consultation before the outcome was reached.
Akitio Trucking dismissed Mr Swenson after concluding he punched another driver. He argued the employer had failed to deal with earlier theft allegations and that its investigation and dismissal process were unjustified.
Owaka Motors dismissed Mr Murray after he lost the driver licence required for his work. He also alleged mental-health discrimination and failure to provide an employment agreement, while the ERA examined whether the employer adequately investigated alternatives and heard from him before dismissal.