Search Employment Law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.