ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 73-80 of 204 results
Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Kyle Horsefield sold cars for Eurocars under an arrangement labelled casual, but his work had the characteristics of ongoing employment. The employer later ended the relationship by text, raising both employment-status and dismissal-justification issues.

Matched passage: Mr Horsefield was a permanent employee working on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the dismissal was unjustified.
Ziyu Xiao and Youtian Yang, and Limei Liu v Fast Horse Limited t/a Fast Horse Express [2026] NZERA 222 - delivery drivers cut off via app/WhatsApp after complaints; unjustified dismissals and disadvantage; $54,500 ordered

Delivery drivers Ziyu Xiao, Youtian Yang and Limei Liu lost access to Fast Horse's app or WhatsApp work channels after raising concerns about their work and pay. The ERA examined whether those digital cut-offs amounted to dismissals and whether the employer had also caused unjustified disadvantage beforehand.

Matched passage: Ms Xiao: blocking access to the work allocation app shortly after her complaint was treated as an unjustified dismissal.
Jasmine Woollett v Commissioner of Police [2026] NZERA 53 - Fiji deployment recall and unfair process; $21,000 compensation

Senior Sergeant Jasmine Woollett challenged decisions surrounding her Fiji deployment, including her recall and the process Police used after her working relationship with a deployment manager deteriorated. Her claim was for unjustified disadvantage rather than dismissal.

Matched passage: In March 2024 she used Police's internal Kia T process to raise a bullying complaint.
LGY v Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809 - interim reinstatement ordered pending dismissal grievance (non-publication)

LGY sought interim reinstatement after being dismissed by a school board while the substantive personal grievance remained unresolved. The Board relied on serious allegations and workplace concerns, while LGY argued there was a strong arguable dismissal case and that reinstatement could operate pending a final hearing.

Matched passage: Why there was a serious question to be tried The Authority assessed whether there was a serious question to be tried on (1) unjustified dismissal and (2) whether permanent reinstatement would likely be practicable and reasonable.
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.

Matched passage: Suspension must be anchored to the contract and a real process: if suspension is justified by "investigation", there must actually be an investigation with particulars, steps, and timeframes.
MTY v Transport (Waimate) Limited [2025] NZERA 510 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $57,298.10 remedies (costs reserved)

A truck driver said Transport (Waimate) had effectively sent him away after a difficult meeting and then prevented a normal return to work. The employer maintained that he had resigned, making the central issue whether its actions objectively amounted to dismissal.

Matched passage: What the case was about The employee (a truck driver) raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
DA SILVA v DSJ JOINERY LIMITED [2025] NZERA 444 - no express dismissal at meeting, but later conduct ended employment

Mr Da Silva left a meeting with DSJ Joinery believing he had been dismissed, although the employer said the meeting was about health and safety rather than discipline. The ERA examined whether there was an actual dismissal and, if not, whether the employer's conduct nevertheless ended the relationship.

Matched passage: In summary, Mr Da Silva says he was unjustifiably dismissed in the 16 October meeting because DSJ did not have a good reason for firing him and it did not follow any process.
RAPANA v UBP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 367 - medical-incapacity dismissal unjustified; contribution reduced compensation

UBP dismissed Mr Rapana after a prolonged period of absence and communication difficulties. The case examined the medical information available to the employer, inconsistencies in the reasons later given for dismissal and whether the investigation fairly addressed the real circumstances.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 367 Registry: Wellington Parties: RAPANA v UBP LIMITED Authority member: Claire English Hearing date: 27 March 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful).

Browse topics