Community Connectors Daynah Olliver and Sheena Taylor were employed on fixed-term agreements that did not properly record the statutory reasons for the fixed terms. Te Araroa then tried to end both employments early without a fair process.
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 unjustified dismissal
A nail technician was dismissed during a purported 90-day trial after seeking advice about her employment rights. The employer had not complied with the notice requirement in its own trial clause.
Mereana Kennedy resigned from Remarkable People after repeated unwanted communications from a candidate created safety concerns and the employer's protective arrangements failed to resolve the problem. She alleged the employer did not properly investigate or respond when the safety plan proved ineffective.
Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.
Adarsh Chand resigned from Professional Stylish Barber Shop after disciplinary warnings and employment treatment he said had destroyed the relationship. The ERA examined whether the warning was substantively and procedurally justified and whether the resulting resignation was caused by the employer's breaches.
Colin Bradshaw claimed he was dismissed after a confrontation during a removal job and a related pay dispute with Ocean To Alps. The ERA had to separate the alleged termination from the employer's subsequent handling of the incident, communications and unpaid hours.
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.
ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.
