Search Employment Law

Living Waters told practice nurse Ms Sutter at a catch-up meeting that her role was being made redundant. The ERA examined whether the claimed business rationale was genuine and whether any real consultation occurred before the decision was effectively made.

Hailee-Anne Hirst said a bakery effectively dismissed her after calling her in on a day off and confronting her about allegedly missing market takings. The employer denied dismissing her but did not participate in the investigation meeting.

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 Raina faced disciplinary action by Hall's Refrigerated Transport, including a meeting invitation that did not tell him he could bring a support person and a generic warning that dismissal was possible. The case concerned both disadvantage during the process and the justification for the eventual termination.

Mr Tong's claims against Sheffield Steel arose after workplace difficulties, attempts to place him with another employer and the eventual end of his employment. He alleged both unjustified disadvantage and constructive dismissal.

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.

KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.

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.