ClickCease

Results for serious misconduct

Showing 81-88 of 103 results
Deborah Coley v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 530 - redundancy threat used to force variation of guaranteed hours

Deborah Coley's agreement guaranteed at least 32 hours each week, but Bupa sought to vary that guarantee by averaging hours across a six-week roster and presented redundancy as the alternative if she refused. A later disciplinary investigation and written warning added a second strand to the disadvantage claim.

Matched passage: A later disciplinary investigation and written warning also caused unjustified disadvantage.
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation told automotive technician Layth Abu-Laban that his employment would end because an alleged one-year contract would not be renewed. His agreement was actually permanent, and the employer later relied on allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft.

Matched passage: The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found the dismissal was unjustified, the alleged misconduct was not substantiated, and the employer's counterclaim failed.
Suspension from Work
9 articles

Suspension is a serious step, not a punishment. An employer ordinarily needs a proper reason and fair process, and the suspension should last no longer than reasonably necessary for the investigation or risk being managed.

Continue
Suspension at work and when it becomes a Personal Grievance (NZ)

When workplace suspension is justified, the consultation and contractual issues employers should consider, and how an unnecessary or unfair suspension can become a separate unjustified-disadvantage grievance.

Matched passage: Suspension is one of the most common "process" steps employers take during misconduct investigations.
Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186 - employment advocate and employment lawyer conduct

Menzies v Corrigan concerned an ERA compliance order that required a company director personally to take steps to fund a liquidated employer so grievance remedies could be paid. The challenge raised questions about s 137(2), separate corporate personality and the reach of compliance jurisdiction.

Matched passage: My position was therefore straightforward: I was representing my client, acting on his instructions and seeking documents we considered relevant to serious allegations being made against him.
Constructive dismissal: when resignation becomes an unfair dismissal personal grievance

Constructive dismissal claims arise when an employee resigns because of sufficiently serious employer conduct. This guide explains the legal tests, evidence to preserve, and why resigning too quickly can weaken a good case.

Matched passage: Employee Case Form Dismissal and resignation Whether it is a disciplinary meeting, a workplace investigation, or a performance issue, a common scenario is the employer proposing termination and then offering a resignation instead.
Menzies v Corrigan [2026] NZEmpC 151 - late challenge refused, substantive issues remain unresolved

Mr Menzies sought to challenge an ERA compliance outcome arising from remedies originally ordered against a company that later entered liquidation. The background raised disputed accounting, disclosure, separate-legal-personality and recovery issues, but the challenge itself was filed substantially out of time.

Matched passage: My position was that the figures required careful accounting analysis before serious conclusions were drawn from them.
James Honotapu v Atlas Fibrous Plaster Company Limited [2026] NZERA 587 - absenteeism dismissal followed an unfair process

Atlas had legitimate concerns about James Honotapu's persistent absenteeism, but did not warn him that a meeting could end in dismissal. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $8,574 after reducing lost wages and compensation by 50 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: Key point: if dismissal becomes a possible outcome during an attendance or disciplinary meeting, the employer should pause the process, explain the risk and allow the employee a proper opportunity to respond with representation and relevant evidence.

Browse topics