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 41-48 of 84 articles in Unjustified Disadvantage
Edmundo Marcelo v Golden Bulls Limited [2025] NZERA 814 - chef dismissed after failed food safety inspection; substantive grounds, but process flaws made dismissal unjustified; $13,707 ordered

Chef Edmundo Marcelo was dismissed by Golden Bulls after a failed food-safety inspection. The employer had substantive concerns about the incident, but the ERA examined whether those concerns were fairly put to him and whether the disciplinary decision was reached through a proper process.

Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor [2025] NZERA 818 - misconduct, medical/incapacity; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Healthcare assistant Shubanghi Kaushal was suspended and then summarily dismissed after an incident the employer characterised as serious misconduct. The ERA examined the incident in context, an existing final warning and whether dismissal was within the range open to a fair and reasonable employer.

Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited [2025] NZERA 805 - suspension without process, bullying, and redundancy while on ACC leave; $25,000 compensation plus arrears and penalty

Haochen Guo was suspended, complained of bullying and was later made redundant while absent on ACC leave. The ERA examined the fairness of the suspension and workplace treatment as well as whether the purported redundancy was genuine and properly consulted on.

Glenice Cooper v Success Realty [2025] NZERA 782 - redundancy, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.

Siddanth Prasad & Ors v Fiji Food Distributors NZ Limited [2025] NZERA 659 - wage arrears, unjustified dismissal and $32,000 compensation each

Four Krazy Price Mart employees said they routinely worked about 60 hours over six days while being paid for substantially fewer hours and were later dismissed when the business was sold without adequate consultation. The case combined personal grievances with extensive minimum-entitlement claims.

Colin Bradshaw v Ocean To Alps Removal & Storage Limited [2025] NZERA 636 - dismissal claim failed, but unjustified disadvantage upheld; $15,000 compensation and wage arrears

Colin Bradshaw claimed he was dismissed after a confrontation during a removal job and a related pay dispute with Ocean To Alps. The ERA had to separate the alleged termination from the employer's subsequent handling of the incident, communications and unpaid hours.

Benjamin Thomas v Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy [2025] NZERA 592 - indefinite paid suspension over prescribed medicinal cannabis; employer silence led to constructive dismissal; $33,545.75 awarded plus $4,571.55 costs/fee

Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.

JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - dismissal over mandatory training modules unjustified

Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to complete mandatory online business modules after a disciplinary process run partly by overseas management. He challenged both the substantive basis for treating the failure as dismissible conduct and the fairness of the procedure.

Browse topics