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.
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.
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.
Brent Colyer had worked for New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited as an electrician for almost 20 years. After he inspected a gantry crane without first isolating a related 35-tonne crane, NZAS investigated and issued a written warning. The ERA found the disciplinary process was unjustified and breached good faith. NZAS had blurred an informal incident investigation into a disciplinary investigation, failed to collect basic statements, allowed an uninvestigated concern about Mr Colyer's attitude toward a colleague to become central, failed to provide the correct investigation report in advance, and then accidentally gave him a draft report containing an outcomes section. Constructive dismissal failed, but unjustified disadvantage succeeded. NZAS was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation...
Amanda Bradley, a Manager Region Training for Fire and Emergency New Zealand, could not establish that her collective agreement gave automatic entry to the FireSuper scheme. The ERA found that eligibility was conditional upon the FireSuper Trust Deed or the Trustees' discretion, and it could not direct FENZ to confer rank or classify the MRT role as Black Watch. But the Authority found FENZ had significant influence over FireSuper eligibility and handled Ms Bradley's enquiries in a poor, slow, inconsistent and confusing manner. That was an unjustified disadvantage and a breach of good faith. Ms Bradley was awarded $5,000 compensation, with no contribution reduction...
Emma Baldwin returned from parental leave to find that RJ Hospitality Solutions Limited had changed the days and hours she had consistently worked for more than two years, provided fewer than her 20 guaranteed hours, and did so without a workplace-change proposal or consultation. The ERA rejected the dismissal and bullying claims, but found an unjustified disadvantage. It awarded $15,000 compensation, 15.5 hours' wage arrears, and any outstanding annual-leave arrears...
In this non-publication determination, four salaried union members established personal grievances for unjustified disadvantage arising from discrimination and duress connected with their union activity. The Authority found that a senior manager held one-on-one meetings in which the applicants were told that strike action and delegate roles harmed their job security and career prospects. A temporary decision to deny striking employees access to discretionary work from home arrangements was also discriminatory. Each applicant was awarded $10,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution.
Todd Dormer claimed Rhino-Rack owed him commission because his employment agreement said only "10% paid quarterly". He argued that meant 10 percent of sales or gross margin. Rhino-Rack said the company-wide Sales Commission Scheme applied. The ERA found the wording was badly drafted and Rhino-Rack had unjustifiably disadvantaged Mr Dormer by failing to give him clear written details of the scheme, but rejected the claim that he was entitled to 10 percent of gross margin. Rhino-Rack was ordered to pay $14,000 compensation, with costs reserved.