Search Employment Law

Southshore Marine attempted to rely on a 90-day trial when dismissing Mr Gillard after concerns about his work. The timing of when employment actually commenced and the complete absence of a fair performance, conduct or capacity process were central issues.

Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

Da Hai Investment treated Ms LeBreton as a casual worker despite an ongoing pattern of part-time work and an original offer suggesting minimum hours. The dispute covered the true status of the relationship, how it ended, sick leave, lost remuneration and statutory breaches.

Mr Kumar resigned from JK Hospitality after alleging he was repeatedly denied proper breaks and practical support at work. The ERA considered whether those breaches were sufficiently serious that resignation was a reasonably foreseeable response.

MOVE Freight dismissed Mr Putaanga for medical incapacity after a workplace accident and a lengthy period assessing his prospects of returning to full-time work. He also alleged the employer had failed to provide a safe workplace and that this caused unjustified disadvantage.

R1i Technology dismissed Mr Bali during a Webex meeting and then confirmed the decision in writing. The employer did not participate in the ERA proceeding and the evidence showed no meaningful process satisfying the minimum statutory tests of procedural fairness.

Mr Ward dismissed Mr Boyd by letter and text message on 21 June 2024 and then did not participate in the ERA investigation despite being aware of the investigation meeting. The claim proceeded on Mr Boyd's evidence and documents.

Open Country Dairy summarily dismissed Mr Stewart on the final day covered by his medical certificate after a disciplinary process. The ERA considered both the employer's process and Mr Stewart's own conduct when assessing justification and remedies.