Search Employment Law

Owaka Motors dismissed Mr Murray after he lost the driver licence required for his work. He also alleged mental-health discrimination and failure to provide an employment agreement, while the ERA examined whether the employer adequately investigated alternatives and heard from him before dismissal.

Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.

Rotorua Quarry treated Cameron Rix's absence as abandonment and ended his employment. The ERA had to decide whether his conduct showed an intention to permanently walk away from the job and whether the employer was entitled to terminate on that basis.

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.

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.

Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.

Ms Cuc was dismissed with one week's notice under what the nail-salon employer said was a 90-day trial period. She said the real issue was that she was outspoken about her employment rights, while performance criticisms were advanced later in the ERA proceeding.