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.
![Resink v Employment Services Limited [2025] NZERA 104 - constructive dismissal after continuing good-faith breaches](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Employment Services pursued a disciplinary investigation without clearly identifying all allegations or providing requested information. An intimidating visit to recover Frank Resink's company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.
Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.
QN was summarily dismissed as a branch manager after FT Limited investigated an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest involving the engagement of a close family member's company. The ERA examined both the underlying conflict and whether the investigation and decision-making process was fair.
This costs determination followed Christopher Wyeth's partly successful employment case against Hansen Products. The dispute was whether costs should be reduced because he had rejected a $10,000 Calderbank settlement offer before the substantive determination.
Jackson Drummond sought to pursue a series of disadvantage, discrimination and good-faith complaints against Massey University, some dating back many months before his December 2023 grievance letter. The preliminary issue was which claims had actually been raised within the statutory 90-day period.
A nail technician was dismissed during a purported 90-day trial after seeking advice about her employment rights. The employer had not complied with the notice requirement in its own trial clause.
Ms Dung Pham disputed the way her employment at a nail salon ended and sought remedies for dismissal. The Authority had to resolve conflicting accounts of whether and when the employer brought the employment relationship to an end.
Trang Bui worked in a small hospitality business where the parties disputed pay, working arrangements and the circumstances in which her employment ended. The ERA considered dismissal and disadvantage claims alongside minimum employment entitlement issues.
