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.
Search Employment Law
Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
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 employee contribution
Commentary on National's proposal to remove or restrict no-win-no-fee employment arrangements and the likely access-to-justice consequences for employees who cannot fund representation upfront.
Employee-side no-win-no-fee employment advocacy for suitable personal-grievance, dismissal and redundancy cases, including mediation and ERA representation where the case meets the acceptance criteria.
Aurora Developments disputed when quantity surveyor Junchen Xu became an employee, saying his first month was only unpaid learning and observation, and later made him redundant without a proposal or consultation. He also claimed wages, incentives and holiday entitlements.
How s 150A treats payments made on resolution of an employment problem, including settlements where the employer separately pays an employee's advocate against a defined GST invoice.
Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.
Electrical Importing Co agreed Valerie Leech's core job terms and told her when to start before presenting a written employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause. It later relied on that clause to dismiss her.
Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were engaged by Queenstown Nursery for temporary plant work and were later selected to stop working, with the employer relying on weather and alleged comparative inefficiency. The case concerned whether the casual or short-assignment characterisation justified ending their work without a fair process.
