Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for final pay
![BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2025] NZERA 561 - redundancy business case and consultation both deficient](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Ms Bell challenged the disestablishment of her role at Hubergroup, arguing that the redundancy lacked a genuine business basis and that she was given an inadequate opportunity to consult on a proposal assembled in haste.
Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to complete mandatory online business modules after a disciplinary process run partly by overseas management. He challenged both the substantive basis for treating the failure as dismissible conduct and the fairness of the procedure.
Ms Levi-Adams was dismissed by Greene after a process in which important material was not provided to her until after the termination decision. The ERA examined whether she had been given the information and opportunity to respond that a fair and reasonable employer was required to provide.
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.
Mr Cully resigned from The Work Shop Limited and alleged the employer's breaches were serious enough to amount to constructive dismissal. He also sought unpaid wages and compensation, requiring the ERA to determine whether his resignation was legally attributable to the employer's conduct.
Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.
Living Waters told practice nurse Ms Sutter at a catch-up meeting that her role was being made redundant. The ERA examined whether the claimed business rationale was genuine and whether any real consultation occurred before the decision was effectively made.
Hailee-Anne Hirst said a bakery effectively dismissed her after calling her in on a day off and confronting her about allegedly missing market takings. The employer denied dismissing her but did not participate in the investigation meeting.
