ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 97-104 of 266 results
Lautusi Isaako v ABS Builders Limited [2025] NZERA 678 - Employee status confirmed, dismissal by text, 3 months lost wages, $15k compensation, holiday pay arrears, costs

Lautusi Isaako worked full-time for ABS Builders under day-to-day direction but the respondents disputed aspects of the employment relationship and later ended his work by text after raising performance concerns for the first time. The case also involved public-holiday, annual-leave and record-keeping failures.

Matched passage: Need help with an unfair dismissal or a contractor vs employee dispute?
Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 - summary dismissal held unjustified; reinstatement declined; $20,000 compensation after contribution

Fire and Emergency summarily dismissed Crawford Morris after complaints about interactions with a female volunteer firefighter, including comments about physical capability and a later dispute over protective clothing. The ERA examined whether insensitive conduct reached the serious-misconduct threshold.

Matched passage: Need help with a PG for unjustified dismissal?
CHAND v ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2025] NZERA 574 - telephone dismissal unjustified

Mr Chand said Rohits Civil & Infrastructure dismissed him during a telephone conversation; the company disputed that account. The ERA had to decide whether the words and surrounding circumstances objectively brought the employment relationship to an end.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - dismissal over mandatory training modules unjustified

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.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
CANALES v THERMASHIELD LIMITED [2025] NZERA 522 - employment existed before first day; dismissal by text unjustified

Mr Canales accepted a part-time window-installer job with Thermashield but missed his intended first day because of a migraine. The case turned on whether an employment relationship had already been formed and whether later text messages brought it to an end.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
PRASAD v WARRIOR NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 492 - employer breaches caused constructive dismissal

Mr Prasad's employment with Warrior NZ deteriorated after employer breaches and a breakdown in the working relationship. The employer did not attend the ERA investigation meeting despite being served with the proceeding.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
PETERSEN v EDGECUMBE SUPERMARKET LIMITED [2025] NZERA 473 - told to leave and surrender uniform amounted to dismissal

Edgecumbe Supermarket said Mrs Petersen was merely suspended after refusing an instruction and that her employment was going to end anyway because of overseas travel. Petersen said she was told to leave, surrender her uniform and was threatened with trespass, which objectively conveyed that she had been fired.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
Wang v Steel Master Co Ltd [2025] NZERA 457 - dismissal, not resignation; $11,000 compensation and 8 weeks lost wages

Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.

Matched passage: Where the employer presents termination as inevitable, the Authority may find the ending was a dismissal.

Browse topics