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.
![Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2022] NZERA 657 - constructive dismissal after a 'trial period' threat by text; $8,000 compensation, $3,600 reimbursement, $2,000 penalty](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Auckland Steam 'N' Dry raised performance concerns with Bridget Addy by text and threatened that she would not make it through a supposed three-month trial, although her agreement contained no trial clause. She resigned in response.
Kaytlin Pinder was dismissed under a purported 90-day trial period. The key issue was whether the trial provision had been validly agreed before she became an employee, together with related failures to provide proper employment documentation.
Gary Cotton's case required the ERA to identify who his employer actually was after work performed through Gosling Solutions and dealings involving Darcee Gosling and Rob Ralston. The case also concerned a summary termination and claims for unpaid employment entitlements.
Leo Waters was made redundant by STL Linehaul in a process he said lacked genuine consultation and a fair opportunity to influence the decision. The ERA examined both the employer's business rationale and whether the redundancy procedure met the good-faith and justification standards.
Briar Leckie was suspended by Alliance Group after a workplace incident involving another employee and later left the employment in circumstances she said had been induced by the employer's handling of the matter. The case focused on the lack of inquiry before suspension and the reliability of the material used against her.
Neil Armstrong worked for Surplus Brokers in an arrangement the employer characterised as casual. The dispute concerned whether he had actually been dismissed, whether the casual label affected his rights, and the employer's failures to provide compliant employment documentation.
