ClickCease

Results for employee contribution

Showing 89-96 of 196 results
Shaoqiang Chen v Wen Hui Lin [2026] NZERA 307 - cash-paid cook unjustifiably dismissed, minimum wage arrears and penalties ordered

Shaoqiang Chen worked long hours as a cook at Beached As Takeaways, was paid cash below lawful rates and later had his employment ended. The case involved employer identity, minimum-wage and holiday entitlements, record failures and the justification for dismissal.

Matched passage: No contribution reduction The ERA considered whether any remedies should be reduced for contribution under s 124 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Sinclair-Walker v Alert Monitoring Otago (1994) Limited [2026] NZERA 29 - unjustified dismissal; $25,000 compensation and $16,900 lost remuneration

Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.

Matched passage: KiwiSaver: $763 (employer contribution).
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal

George King was dismissed by Off the Wall Construction under a purported 90-day trial. The decisive issue was timing: he had already performed paid work before signing the agreement containing the trial provision.

Matched passage: 00 compensation for hurt and humiliation (section 123(1)(c)) Note on "contribution": The Authority reduced the compensation from the $25,000 sought, noting aspects of the employee's conduct and the wider circumstances.
WILKINS v DD GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 536 - 90-day trial invalid because agreement was signed after work began

DD Group Holdings relied on a 90-day trial clause to dismiss Kelly Wilkins, but she had already begun paid training before the employment agreement containing the clause was signed. Her own conduct was also relevant to remedies.

Matched passage: The Authority reduced lost remuneration and compensation by 70% for contribution.
Thuy v Huynh [2025] NZERA 74 - 90-day trial failed; dismissal for seeking employment advice unjustified

A nail technician was dismissed during a purported 90-day trial after seeking advice about her employment rights. The employer had not complied with the notice requirement in its own trial clause.

Matched passage: Contribution: no reduction was applied to these remedies.
Employment lawyer fees: avoiding unreasonable costs when defending a personal grievance

Employer-side guidance on controlling representation costs in a personal-grievance defence and understanding the gap between a lawyer's invoice and the costs normally recoverable in the ERA.

Matched passage: The reality of costs in the ERA A common employer shock is that even when you "win" in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), recovering your actual legal spend from the employee is usually limited.
Employer ERA costs: when an employer can claim costs after winning

What an employer can realistically recover in ERA costs after successfully defending a claim, including the daily-tariff starting point and the circumstances that can increase or reduce an award.

Matched passage: What employers can really recover in ERA costs A common employer shock is that even when you "win" in the ERA, recovering your actual legal spend from the employee is usually limited.
MBIE employment mediation: what to expect and how to prepare

What employees should expect at MBIE employment mediation: the mediator's role, joint and private sessions, preparation, negotiation and how a settlement becomes binding.

Matched passage: The employer may settle and pay the employee instead and the enforcement of an order that an employee pays the $4,500 to the employer can be waived in the settlement agreement.

Browse topics