Search Employment Law

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Sasha Lee performed management, HR and operational work across JNJ group businesses before duties were removed and her position was later declared redundant. She challenged both the unilateral reduction of responsibilities and the redundancy process, together with wage and holiday-pay issues.

Deborah Eyles was stood down from her supervised-contact work and later dismissed in circumstances the employer characterised as redundancy. She challenged both the unexplained removal from work and the absence of any genuine consultation or fair redundancy process.

A Port of Tauranga stevedore was dismissed for medical incapacity after an asthma flare during dusty palm-kernel work. He sought interim reinstatement, arguing there was a serious dispute about the actual exposure risk, his capacity for modified duties and the employer's consideration of alternatives.

Painter Cameron Wong was told to pack his belongings and leave after a workplace confrontation, then received only part of his final entitlements. Obers Brothers Construction, already in liquidation, did not participate in the ERA investigation.

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.

Mr Watson challenged a written warning and later alleged he was constructively dismissed after his relationship with Alchemy Builders deteriorated and he was removed from a workplace WhatsApp group. Timeliness affected the earlier disadvantage grievance.

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.