ERA accepted serious food safety and hygiene deficiencies justified dismissal in substance, but found the suspension and termination process was flawed and unfair.
Search employment law articles and guides
Use the search box below (or in the menu bar above) to find topics and articles.
Search tips
- Use quotes for exact phrases, eg "unfair dismissal".
- Use +word to require, -word to exclude, eg +redundancy -trial.
- Use OR to broaden, eg dismissal OR redundancy.
Results for ERA
The ERA held there was a serious question to be.
An ERA finding of unjustified dismissal where the employer tried to rely on a trial period clause that did not meet s 67A requirements and then failed to engage with the Authority's investigation.
The ERA accepted business reasons could exist, but held the consultation was not genuine: key information was withheld, outcomes were effectively predetermined, and redeployment was not properly consulted on.
The ERA upheld unjustified disadvantage and unjustified.
An anonymised Christchurch ERA determination where the Authority found constructive dismissal after an unfair suspension, a misleading complaint outcome, and a disciplinary ...
The ERA found he was a permanent employee and the dismissal was unjustified.
