Search Employment Law

Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.

Mr Da Silva left a meeting with DSJ Joinery believing he had been dismissed, although the employer said the meeting was about health and safety rather than discipline. The ERA examined whether there was an actual dismissal and, if not, whether the employer's conduct nevertheless ended the relationship.

South Pole treated Xinhua Hao as having agreed to resign, despite his repeated denials, then withheld work and continued pressing the resignation dispute. The ERA found those actions caused an unjustified constructive dismissal.

Briar Leckie was suspended by Alliance Group after a workplace incident involving another employee and later left the employment in circumstances she said had been induced by the employer's handling of the matter. The case focused on the lack of inquiry before suspension and the reliability of the material used against her.

The debate over whether non-lawyer employment advocates should be allowed to represent parties in the Employment Court, with a focus on access to justice, existing court powers and the evidence said to support exclusion.

The steps that commonly occur before and after an ERA application is filed, including raising the problem, mediation, statements of problem and reply, directions, evidence and preparation for the investigation meeting.

Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.

IRD dismissed ZZP for medical incapacity after a lengthy absence and failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted the employer had allowed a reasonable recovery period and could treat later medical evidence cautiously, but the final decision introduced concerns ZZP had never been asked to address.