ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 81-88 of 204 results
TRAIL v VEOLIA WATER SERVICES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 353 - dismissal for workplace outbursts still unjustified

Veolia dismissed Mr Trail after a series of workplace outbursts, having previously issued a warning and then relied on later complaints. The ERA examined whether the proven conduct and disciplinary history could reasonably justify dismissal.

Matched passage: After the 6 September 2023 meeting Mr Rozitis and Mr Neru discussed the outcome of the disciplinary process and on 7 September 2023 issued a notice of dismissal to Mr Trail.
THING v SOUTH POLE IP HOLDING (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 142 - dismissal theory fails in part but disadvantage grievance succeeds

Ms Thing's dispute with South Pole IP Holding concerned whether the end of her employment was a dismissal or resignation and whether the employer's earlier conduct had unjustifiably disadvantaged her. The case required the ERA to distinguish direct or constructive dismissal from separate disadvantage grievances.

Matched passage: Later, Dismissal vs resignation [68] For Ms Thing's dismissal claim to succeed, she must show that there was an act of termination by South Pole.
QN v FT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 99 - unjustified dismissal

QN was summarily dismissed as a branch manager after FT Limited investigated an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest involving the engagement of a close family member's company. The ERA examined both the underlying conflict and whether the investigation and decision-making process was fair.

Matched passage: After that, Prior to the dismissal QN was issued a (quoted wording omitted) covering issues unrelated to the dismissal and they are challenging the justifiability of this letter as a separate disadvantage personal grievance.
RAY YU v SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED [2025] NZERA 64 - Unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage (warning)

Synergy Nutrition issued Ray Yu a written warning and later dismissed him amid concerns including phone use and his ability to work night shifts. The ERA separately assessed the fairness of the warning, dismissal and Yu's own conduct under the contribution provisions.

Matched passage: The warning caused Mr Yu disadvantage in his employment - he was on notice any further breach of policy could result in his dismissal.
O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 57 - NDA disadvantage and redundancy dismissal unjustified

The Platform Media made Ms O'Brien redundant after a period of absence and a dispute that also involved a proposed NDA. The ERA examined whether redundancy was the true predominant reason, whether alternatives and redeployment were genuinely considered, and whether the NDA process caused disadvantage.

Matched passage: Ms O'Brien claims lost wages for the period 17 February 2023, that being the date of the investigation meeting relating the other proceedings in the Authority, to 15 June 2024, that being the date of dismissal.
Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - unjustified dismissal; 50% contribution; no lost wages

Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.

Matched passage: CJS accepted that, if a dismissal was found, it could not be justified because no proper process had been followed.
Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52 - Unjustified dismissal, probation clause misused

Mere Broughton was dismissed after 106 days at The Whanau Ora Community Clinic. Her agreement contained a probation clause, and the dispute centred on the employer's attempt to use that clause as a shortcut to termination rather than carrying out a substantively justified and fair process.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Probation is not a free pass: you still need fair process, feedback, and warning.
Tracy Alpar v Bookieland Limited [2026] NZERA 191 - unsigned seasonal fixed term not enforceable; dismissal by WhatsApp; $12,000 compensation and $14,000 reimbursement

Tracy Alpar worked for Bookieland under an unsigned seasonal fixed-term arrangement and was later told through WhatsApp that her employment had ended. The ERA had to decide whether the purported fixed term complied with the statutory requirements and whether the termination was justified.

Matched passage: Because Bookieland proceeded on an incorrect fixed term premise and did not follow a dismissal process (investigation, raising concerns, and giving a meaningful opportunity to respond), it could not justify the dismissal.

Browse topics