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.
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.
In Gary Cotton v Darcee Gosling [2022] NZERA 90, the ERA identified the employer at the outset of the relationship and held Darcee Gosling was personally liable. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority ordered lost wages, wage arrears, holiday pay and compensation.
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.
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.
