Search employment law articles and guides

ERA held the employee was not unequivocally dismissed after a disputed phone call about guaranteed hours, so the unjustified dismissal claim failed.

TTH relied on an incident that had happened almost three weeks prior to his dismissal to allege his behaviour was wilful or deliberate.

On the morning of the investigation meeting scheduled for 21 December 2023, it became apparent that Mr Uerata would be unable to attend the meeting.

ERA held the employer acted unjustifiably by changing rostering without giving the employee a reasonable chance to comment, and by running a deficient process before issuing a final written warning.

In Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura v Cruz Bar Ltd [2023] NZERA 376, the ERA found the employer unjustifiably dismissed a security guard while he was isolating due to Covid-19.

In Mere Broughton v The Whanau Ora Community Clinic Ltd [2023] NZERA 52, the ERA found an unjustified dismissal after the employer wrongly relied on a probation / "90 day" misunderstanding after the probation ...

ERA found the employee was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed after the employer raised performance concerns by text and threatened she would not make it out of a '3-month trial' when no trial clause existed.

In Kaytlin Pinder v S & O Bayliss Ltd [2022] NZERA 646 the ERA held the 90-day trial clause was invalid because employment had already been accepted before the agreement was signed.