ClickCease

Results for trial period dismissal

Showing 113-120 of 209 results
Yu Chunyan, Sun Tingting, Liu Danhua, Zhang Shijie v Miaodi's Laundromat Ltd t/a Mr Suds and Yang Yang [2026] NZERA 31 - Unjustified dismissal, wage arrears, compensation and penalty

Four workers at Miaodi's Laundromat alleged their employment was ended without a fair process and that significant wage and holiday entitlements had not been paid. The proceeding also involved personal liability and penalties for minimum employment-standard breaches.

Matched passage: The decision records findings that wages were not paid when due and that withholding pay resulted in the employees being paid below minimum wage for much of the period.
MA v NO.2 NOODLE NZ LIMITED [2026] NZERA 25 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $9,500 compensation; one week wages; $500 penalty.

Ms Ma's short restaurant employment ended after management announced reduced hours and a disputed phone call, followed by her omission from the next roster. The employer said she was casual and had abandoned employment.

Matched passage: At the investigation meeting Ms Ma provided compelling evidence regarding the impact of the dismissal on her.
Edmundo Marcelo v Golden Bulls Limited [2025] NZERA 814 - chef dismissed after failed food safety inspection; substantive grounds, but process flaws made dismissal unjustified; $13,707 ordered

Chef Edmundo Marcelo was dismissed by Golden Bulls after a failed food-safety inspection. The employer had substantive concerns about the incident, but the ERA examined whether those concerns were fairly put to him and whether the disciplinary decision was reached through a proper process.

Matched passage: Dismissal was substantively justified but procedurally flawed; the dismissal was therefore unjustified.
KMW v ZIB Digital Limited [2025] NZERA 806 - redundancy consultation called a 'charade'; unjustified dismissal; $47,692.30 awarded

KMW was selected for redundancy by ZIB Digital after a process the employee said had been predetermined and gave consultation no real prospect of changing the outcome. The ERA examined the business rationale, the information provided and whether the consultation was genuine.

Matched passage: ... date: 12 December 2025 Respondent: ZIB Digital Limited (ZIB) Outcome: redundancy dismissal unjustified; unjustified disadvantage and good faith breach findings; penalty declined; misrepresentation claims unsuccessful; costs reserved Remedies ordered: $20,000 ...
Jingsheng Liu v Legend International Holdings Limited, Hongyu Holding Limited and Wang Yu [2025] NZERA 702 - unjustified dismissal by 'no work next week' text; 4 weeks lost wages + notice arrears; $15,000 compensation; penalties and s 142Y leave

Cabinet maker Jingsheng Liu was told by text that there would be no work the following week after the business moved and operations shifted between related companies. There had been no consultation, termination process or reasonable notice.

Matched passage: No contribution reduction: no blameworthy conduct by Mr Liu contributed to the dismissal process failures.
Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 - summary dismissal held unjustified; reinstatement declined; $20,000 compensation after contribution

Fire and Emergency summarily dismissed Crawford Morris after complaints about interactions with a female volunteer firefighter, including comments about physical capability and a later dispute over protective clothing. The ERA examined whether insensitive conduct reached the serious-misconduct threshold.

Matched passage: pdf"; } Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 (Christchurch registry, Member David G Beck).
PRASAD v WARRIOR NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 492 - employer breaches caused constructive dismissal

Mr Prasad's employment with Warrior NZ deteriorated after employer breaches and a breakdown in the working relationship. The employer did not attend the ERA investigation meeting despite being served with the proceeding.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 492 Registry: Wellington Parties: PRASAD v WARRIOR NZ LIMITED Authority member: Natasha Szeto Hearing date: 20 May 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376 - Unjustified dismissal during Covid isolation, redundancy not genuine

Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura's employment at Cruz Bar ended while Covid isolation requirements were affecting work. The employer relied on redundancy, but the ERA examined whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether any fair consultation process occurred before the employment ended.

Matched passage: Why this case matters Redundancy vs dismissal: calling something "redundancy" does not make it genuine if the role continues or if the real reason is something else.

Browse topics