![WILKINS v DD GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 536 - A costs determination was made.](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
A costs determination was made. On 19 April 2024 Ms Wilkins said she received a telephone call from Murdoch Razmi during which they discussed her being interviewed for the position of Store Manager which DDGH considered her skills more applicable.
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.
A costs determination was made. On 19 April 2024 Ms Wilkins said she received a telephone call from Murdoch Razmi during which they discussed her being interviewed for the position of Store Manager which DDGH considered her skills more applicable.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Mr Canales says a migraine stopped him from turning up to work on his first day and when he was able to look at his phone, he saw Thermashield had dismissed him by text message.
The ERA found the employer dismissed an anonymised truck driver by effectively "running dead" after a heated meeting, then leaving him suspended without pay while the director was overseas. Unjustified dismissal was upheld and the Authority ordered $24,000 compensation, $30,558.84 lost remuneration, plus KiwiSaver and licence cost reimbursement (costs reserved).
A costs determination was made. Following the conclusion of the Authority's investigation meeting, TWSL was liquidated on 4 February 2025.
A penalty determination was made. Abhyudaya denies that Ms Xu was unjustifiably dismissed or unjustifiably disadvantaged and claims that she was justifiably dismissed following a fair redundancy procedure.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. An investigation meeting was set down for 20 May 2025 in Napier.
The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Lanquan's employees increased to five when Mr Shen was employed from (at least) October 2023 until his dismissal on 6 August 2024.2 Lanquan had six employees during the three days Ms Wei worked in...
A costs determination was made. A year into her employment, Living Waters invited Ms Sutter to a catch up meeting and told her that her Practice Nurse role was being made redundant.