Search employment law articles and guides

The ERA accepted business reasons could exist, but held the consultation was not genuine: key information was withheld, outcomes were effectively predetermined, and redeployment was not properly consulted on.

The ERA upheld unjustified disadvantage and unjustified.

An anonymised Christchurch ERA determination where the Authority found constructive dismissal after an unfair suspension, a misleading complaint outcome, and a disciplinary ...

The ERA found he was a permanent employee and the dismissal was unjustified.

The business had moved and quietly shifted operations from one company to a related company.

In Lautusi Isaako v ABS Builders Limited [2025] NZERA 678 (Auckland), the ERA found Mr Isaako was an employee (not a contractor) and was unjustifiably dismissed by a text message.

ERA held the employee was not dismissed after a confrontation on a removal job, so the unjustified dismissal claim failed.

The ERA held the conduct relied on did not meet the serious misconduct threshold and the dismissal was unjustified.