Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart after alleging he had prepared food for himself at the workplace while recorded as working, in a dispute that also involved allegations of theft. The ERA examined whether the evidence and disciplinary response could justify dismissal.
Search Employment Law
Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Search tips
- Use quotes for exact phrases, eg "unfair dismissal".
- Use +word to require, -word to exclude, eg +redundancy -trial.
- Use OR to broaden, eg dismissal OR redundancy.
Results for final pay
STILLMAN v BROTHER COFFEE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 239 - genuine redundancy but consultation unfair
CaseBrother Coffee closed its cafe and made Ms Stillman redundant. The ERA accepted there were genuine commercial and personal reasons to close but examined when the decision was actually made and whether consultation occurred before the outcome became fixed.
Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.
Akitio Trucking dismissed Mr Swenson after concluding he punched another driver. He argued the employer had failed to deal with earlier theft allegations and that its investigation and dismissal process were unjustified.
Owaka Motors dismissed Mr Murray after he lost the driver licence required for his work. He also alleged mental-health discrimination and failure to provide an employment agreement, while the ERA examined whether the employer adequately investigated alternatives and heard from him before dismissal.
Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.
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.
Ms Thing's dispute with South Pole IP Holding concerned whether the end of her employment was a dismissal or resignation and whether the employer's earlier conduct had unjustifiably disadvantaged her. The case required the ERA to distinguish direct or constructive dismissal from separate disadvantage grievances.
