ClickCease

Unjustified Disadvantage

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 (personal grievance)

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.

What is unjustified disadvantage?

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.

Common examples

  • Pay or allowance changes (cutting pay, removing allowances, changing commission arrangements) without justification.
  • Hours and roster changes that create real hardship and are imposed without proper consultation.
  • Demotion or stripping duties (removing responsibilities, status, client portfolio, tools, or access) without fair reason.
  • Unfair or defective discipline (warnings, written allegations, outcome letters) where the process is not fair.
  • Suspension or stand-down that is not reasonably necessary, or is used as punishment.
  • Failure to address bullying or harassment after a complaint is raised (or a sham investigation).
  • Unreasonable performance management (predetermined outcomes, impossible targets, no support, moving goalarticles).
  • Forced relocation or changes to work location without a proper basis.
  • Privacy and process failures (spreading allegations, public humiliation, mishandling sensitive information).
  • Selective or inconsistent treatment compared with peers, without a defensible explanation.

The real battleground: was the employer action unjustifiable?

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.

  • Evidence and reasons: what was the employer trying to achieve, and what evidence supported it?
  • Process: was the employee told what the issue was, given information, and allowed a meaningful chance to respond?
  • Consistency: was the employee treated consistently with policy, past practice, and comparable employees?
  • Proportionality: was the response proportionate to the issue, or was it overreach?

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.

Time limits: usually 90 days

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.

A simple way to raise it (template)

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.

Evidence that usually matters

  • The employment agreement, job description, and any variation letters.
  • The key emails/letters (allegations, meeting invites, warnings, outcome letters, restructure proposals).
  • Your timeline (5 to 10 bullets in order, with dates).
  • Any policy documents relied on (conduct, discipline, bullying/harassment, performance, IT, privacy).
  • Notes of meetings, witness names, and any supporting documents (rosters, pay slips, screenshots).

Outcomes and remedies (what can be on the table)

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.

  • Removing or correcting warnings, allegations, or outcome letters.
  • Backpay or reimbursement where the disadvantage caused loss.
  • Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, or injury to feelings (fact-dependent).
  • Clarifying duties, reporting lines, and future process to prevent repeat disputes.
  • Settlement terms including confidentiality, references, and clean exit arrangements where appropriate.

If you are an employer

Unjustified disadvantage claims are often a process audit. If you are responding as an employer, focus on the record and keep the process tight.

  • Do not react: stabilise, gather the documents, and identify the decision-maker.
  • Check time limits: confirm whether the PG was raised within time and avoid accidental waiver.
  • Respond to the substance: what was done, why it was done, and what process was followed.
  • Fix defects early: if something was mishandled, a practical remedy early can prevent escalation.
Useful references: Employment Relations Act 2000 s 103 (personal grievance) and s 114 (time limits). Read s 103 Read s 114 MBIE guidance

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search
Showing 25-32 of 84 articles in Unjustified Disadvantage
Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods [2026] NZERA 179 - misconduct, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.

Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.

Clive Bryham v Electrix Limited (trading as Omexom New Zealand) [2026] NZERA 147 - interim reinstatement granted; arguable unjustified dismissal where employer alleged reputational harm without evidence

Clive Bryham, a long-serving field operations manager, was dismissed after Omexom alleged he mishandled an 'illegal connection' incident involving a direct report and exposed the business to reputational risk with a key client. He sought interim reinstatement pending final determination of his dismissal and disadvantage grievances.

Yang (Helen) Feng v Dong Construction and Dong Wang [2026] NZERA 132 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and entitlement breaches established

Yang (Helen) Feng worked for Dong Construction in circumstances involving a disputed trial period and claims for unpaid employment entitlements. The ERA examined whether the trial clause could lawfully prevent a dismissal grievance and what wages or other payments remained owing.

Nicholas Fry v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2026] NZERA 116 - FENZ identity-promise breach caused disadvantage; $13,000 compensation

Nicholas Fry's dispute with Fire and Emergency New Zealand arose from FireSuper membership and a promise about protecting the identity of another person, TEP, whose eligibility he had raised. Mr Fry alleged FENZ broke that promise and that the resulting use of TEP's identity damaged his employment relationship.

Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

Thomas Kenna was made redundant from Anztec after a restructuring that the ERA accepted had a genuine business basis. He challenged alleged predetermination and the employer's failure to proactively disclose information needed to understand and respond to the proposal.

Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

Retail assistant Gemma Pedersen was dismissed by WhatsApp/email during a six-month probation period for allegedly missing sales KPIs. She said she had not received the promised practical training and had never been put through a genuine performance process before termination.

Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

Jack Wills worked at Complex Forme without a written agreement and was not paid for 32 hours of work. After he sought clarity about pay and rostering, the employer stopped responding, removed his access and ceased providing work.

Browse topics