Unjustified disadvantage is a Personal Grievance (PG) where an employer takes unjustifiable action that disadvantages an employee or worsens the employee's conditions. This page explains the basics, common examples, time limits, evidence, and practical next steps.
Unjustified disadvantage is one of the most common personal grievance types in New Zealand. It covers a wide range of employer actions that worsen an employee's conditions or otherwise disadvantage them.
Under section 103(1)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, a personal grievance includes a claim that the employee's employment or conditions were affected to the employee's disadvantage by some unjustifiable action by the employer.
In plain terms: if your employer does something that harms you at work (pay, duties, hours, treatment, discipline, safety, opportunities) and they cannot justify it, you may have an unjustified disadvantage grievance.
Most unjustified disadvantage disputes are not about whether the employee was unhappy. They turn on whether the employer's action (and the process used) was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
A practical warning: where the dispute is really about interpreting a clause in the employment agreement, it may be treated as an interpretation dispute rather than an unjustified disadvantage claim. The framing matters.
For most personal grievances, you generally must raise the grievance with the employer within 90 days of the action happening or coming to your notice (whichever is later). There are limited pathways for late grievances, but do not rely on them.
Subject: Personal grievance - unjustified disadvantage
I am raising a personal grievance (PG) for unjustified disadvantage. The disadvantage is: [briefly describe what happened]. The key dates are: [dates]. The outcome I want is: [what you are seeking]. Please confirm you have received this and advise the next steps.
Many unjustified disadvantage disputes resolve by agreement (often at MBIE mediation). Depending on the facts, outcomes can include changes to the employer record, compensation, and practical fixes.
Unjustified disadvantage claims are often a process audit. If you are responding as an employer, focus on the record and keep the process tight.
Section 4 of the Employment Relations Act requires parties to an employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith. The obligation is wider than simply avoiding dishonesty. It includes active and constructive conduct, responsiveness and communication, and in specified circumstances an employer must provide relevant information and an opportunity to comment before making an adverse decision.
Suspension is sometimes necessary, but it is never a harmless step. This guide explains the legal tests for suspension in New Zealand, and when a suspension becomes an unjustified disadvantage personal grievance.
Bullying at work is usually repeated, unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to health and safety. Here is what to document, how to raise it, and what legal options can apply.
A practical guide to the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 (assented 20 Feb 2026, in force 21 Feb 2026): contractor gateway test, new $200k remuneration threshold, changes to s 103A, stronger contribution and serious misconduct remedy limits, and 30-day collective agreement changes.
Lindisfarne College was justified in dismissing long-serving IT manager Kevin Whelan for a serious comment made to students while showing them CCTV footage of an accident. However, the College did not comply with the collective agreement when it paid four weeks in lieu instead of allowing one month's notice or properly invoking instant dismissal. The ERA awarded $717.92 gross short-paid notice and $12,000 compensation for unjustified disadvantage.
Auckland Transport was justified in dismissing FHE for serious misconduct, but it effectively suspended him for two days before completing a fair consultation process. The ERA upheld the dismissal, found the initial suspension caused unjustified disadvantage, and awarded $3,000 compensation.
Deborah Coley's permanent employment agreement guaranteed at least 32 hours of work each week. When she refused Bupa Care Services NZ Limited's proposed variation to average those hours over a six-week roster, Bupa presented redundancy as the only alternative. The ERA found the redundancy proposal was not genuine and that Bupa's bargaining breached good faith and unjustifiably disadvantaged Ms Coley. A later disciplinary investigation and written warning also caused unjustified disadvantage. Bupa was ordered to pay $15,000 compensation and $4,000 in penalties.
The ERA found Hamilton City Council liable for unjustified disadvantage caused by the conduct of Hamilton Zoo's former senior manager towards zookeeper Ashleigh Sanders. The conduct involved intrusive personal contact, out-of-hours messages, requests for information about colleagues, favouritism and career-related pressure, and came close to sexual harassment. Constructive dismissal was not established because the manager had left 14 months before the resignation and causation was not proved. The Council was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation.
