ClickCease

Results for disciplinary

Showing 113-120 of 155 results
CALLEN v ALARON PRODUCTS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 165 - dismissal grievance allowed; compensation and lost wages awarded

Mr Callen's unjustified-dismissal grievance against Alaron Products was not formally filed in the Authority until after the ordinary 90-day raising period had become an issue. The case addressed whether the grievance could nevertheless proceed and what remedies followed from the dismissal claim.

Matched passage: Mr Gray advised Mr Evans would represent the company at the meeting and if no suitable explanation was given by Mr Callen, he was facing potential disciplinary action up to and including his dismissal.
KINZETT v FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND [2025] NZERA 132 - dismissal unjustified; investigation disadvantages justified

Fire and Emergency New Zealand investigated complaints involving firefighter Russell Kinzett and two other firefighters before summarily dismissing him. Mr Kinzett challenged both the investigation process and the dismissal, and was later interim-reinstated.

Matched passage: The report led to disciplinary action against Mr Kinzett, ultimately resulting in his summary dismissal on 6 May 2024.
QN v FT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 99 - unjustified dismissal

QN was summarily dismissed as a branch manager after FT Limited investigated an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest involving the engagement of a close family member's company. The ERA examined both the underlying conflict and whether the investigation and decision-making process was fair.

Matched passage: Ultimately, The letter then drew attention to examples of serious misconduct in QN's employment agreement and a company disciplinary and dismissal policy relating to a conflict-of-interest activity and failure to disclose.
RAY YU v SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED [2025] NZERA 64 - Unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage (warning)

Synergy Nutrition issued Ray Yu a written warning and later dismissed him amid concerns including phone use and his ability to work night shifts. The ERA separately assessed the fairness of the warning, dismissal and Yu's own conduct under the contribution provisions.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The written warning issued to Mr Yu was disciplinary in nature following an inquiry into his conduct - the letter states Mr Yu's employment may be terminated if he continues not to follow SNL's policies and procedures.
O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 56 - disadvantage claims decided; later dismissal claims left separate

Ms O'Brien's proceeding against The Platform concerned employment grievances arising before her later dismissal. After the investigation meeting she sought to add dismissal-related claims, creating a procedural dispute about whether those new matters belonged in the determination already under way.

Matched passage: Ultimately, The letter sought a meeting with Ms O'Brien to obtain her response to the allegations and recorded that disciplinary action up to and including summary dismissal was a possibility.
JOHNSTONE v ZXY [2025] NZERA 11 - care worker's summary dismissal unjustified; hindsight undermined the process

A care worker with 21 years' service was summarily dismissed after a resident incident, principally for not calling an ambulance. The ERA examined whether the employer judged her conduct with hindsight and fairly considered what she actually knew, her explanations and gaps in workplace policies and practice.

Matched passage: Disciplinary Process Following further investigation, ZXY wrote to Ms Johnstone in a letter dated 12 May 2023 notifying her of a disciplinary meeting and convening a formal disciplinary meeting to hear her responses to allegations of serious misconduct.
Jacob Maarschalk v West Auckland Trust Services Limited [2024] NZERA 333 - Unjustified disadvantage found over rostering changes and flawed final written warning; $8,500 ordered

Jacob Maarschalk was contracted for 25 hours a week but was regularly rostered for substantially more at West Auckland Trust Services. The dispute concerned later roster changes and a final written warning, including whether he was given a fair opportunity to comment before those decisions affected his employment.

Matched passage: The Trusts moved from an 'informal' meeting to a formal disciplinary meeting and then issued a first and final written warning on 3 April 2023.
Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - unjustified dismissal; 50% contribution; no lost wages

Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.

Matched passage: Contribution is not a substitute for an employer carrying out a proper disciplinary or performance process.

Browse topics