Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for dismissal process
![BROWN v TIMBER TOWN HARVESTING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 117 - real dismissal reasons were not fairly put to the employee](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Timber Town Harvesting summarily dismissed Mr Brown after relying on an earlier workplace incident and disputed warnings. The case examined whether the reasons actually relied on were properly put to him and whether he had been given a meaningful opportunity to understand and correct the employer's concerns.
A nail technician was dismissed during a purported 90-day trial after seeking advice about her employment rights. The employer had not complied with the notice requirement in its own trial clause.
Ms Dung Pham disputed the way her employment at a nail salon ended and sought remedies for dismissal. The Authority had to resolve conflicting accounts of whether and when the employer brought the employment relationship to an end.
Cooper No 1 sold its business and told Ms Piacun her employment was ending, without paying a notice period. The ERA considered whether the sale itself ended employment or whether Cooper had taken the initiative to terminate her contract.
Auckland Steam 'N' Dry raised performance concerns with Bridget Addy by text and threatened that she would not make it through a supposed three-month trial, although her agreement contained no trial clause. She resigned in response.
Gary Cotton's case required the ERA to identify who his employer actually was after work performed through Gosling Solutions and dealings involving Darcee Gosling and Rob Ralston. The case also concerned a summary termination and claims for unpaid employment entitlements.
Briar Leckie was suspended by Alliance Group after a workplace incident involving another employee and later left the employment in circumstances she said had been induced by the employer's handling of the matter. The case focused on the lack of inquiry before suspension and the reliability of the material used against her.
South Pole maintained that Xinhua Hao had agreed to resign, pressured him to leave, stopped providing meaningful work and refused to engage with him about work matters. The Employment Court upheld the ERA's constructive-dismissal finding.
