Search Employment Law

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.

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.

Steel Master said Mr Wang had resigned, but he had been given a choice between finding another job and being unilaterally dismissed. The ERA examined the objective effect of that ultimatum rather than the employer's description of the ending.

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.

Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

Da Hai Investment treated Ms LeBreton as a casual worker despite an ongoing pattern of part-time work and an original offer suggesting minimum hours. The dispute covered the true status of the relationship, how it ended, sick leave, lost remuneration and statutory breaches.

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.

MOVE Freight dismissed Mr Putaanga for medical incapacity after a workplace accident and a lengthy period assessing his prospects of returning to full-time work. He also alleged the employer had failed to provide a safe workplace and that this caused unjustified disadvantage.