ClickCease

Results for final pay

Showing 137-144 of 184 results
TRANG BUI v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 72 - dismissal and employment-entitlement claims partly successful

Trang Bui worked in a small hospitality business where the parties disputed pay, working arrangements and the circumstances in which her employment ended. The ERA considered dismissal and disadvantage claims alongside minimum employment entitlement issues.

Matched passage: Decision markers The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Trang Bui in the terms and conditions of her employment.
RAY YU v SYNERGY NUTRITION LIMITED [2025] NZERA 64 - Unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage (warning)

Synergy Nutrition issued Ray Yu a written warning and later dismissed him amid concerns including phone use and his ability to work night shifts. The ERA separately assessed the fairness of the warning, dismissal and Yu's own conduct under the contribution provisions.

Matched passage: Orders and payments mentioned Reimbursement of lost wages: $5,932.
O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 56 - disadvantage claims decided; later dismissal claims left separate

Ms O'Brien's proceeding against The Platform concerned employment grievances arising before her later dismissal. After the investigation meeting she sought to add dismissal-related claims, creating a procedural dispute about whether those new matters belonged in the determination already under way.

Matched passage: Orders and payments mentioned Compensation: $17,550.
O'BRIEN v THE PLATFORM MEDIA NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 57 - NDA disadvantage and redundancy dismissal unjustified

The Platform Media made Ms O'Brien redundant after a period of absence and a dispute that also involved a proposed NDA. The ERA examined whether redundancy was the true predominant reason, whether alternatives and redeployment were genuinely considered, and whether the NDA process caused disadvantage.

Matched passage: I am also satisfied that for the duration of the relevant periods Ms O'Brien received income from other work that was at least [79] The Authority found that Ms O'Brien did not suffer a loss of income and that she is not entitled to compensation for lost wages.
UERATA v EXPERT MOVING GROUP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 34 - dismissal failed substantive and procedural justification

Expert Moving dismissed Mr Uerata without meeting the minimum procedural requirements in s 103A or its good-faith consultation obligations. The dispute also involved unpaid amounts and the hours he had been working before termination.

Matched passage: The Authority was satisfied that Mr Uerata was working an average of 26 hours per week at the time of his dismissal, and that this is the appropriate basis for an assessment of his lost wages.
CHEN v CONSTRUST LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 20 - unjustified dismissal; compensation, wages and penalty

Mr Chen worked in a construction arrangement where the identity of the employer and the true nature of the relationship were disputed. Evidence at the ERA included inconsistent accounts about when Construst was first mentioned and the parties agreed the amount of lost remuneration if employment was established.

Matched passage: Mr Dai is ordered to pay Mr Chen $20,000.
JOHNSTONE v ZXY [2025] NZERA 11 - care worker's summary dismissal unjustified; hindsight undermined the process

A care worker with 21 years' service was summarily dismissed after a resident incident, principally for not calling an ambulance. The ERA examined whether the employer judged her conduct with hindsight and fairly considered what she actually knew, her explanations and gaps in workplace policies and practice.

Matched passage: Orders and payments mentioned Compensation: $25,000 Lost wages: Three months' Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording).
KNOX v RECRUIT IT GROUP LIMITED [2025] NZERA 4 - redundancy rationale and consultation failed scrutiny

Recruit IT Group made Mr Knox's consultant role redundant shortly before another staff member was promoted into a consultant position. Mr Knox argued the redundancy rationale, consultation timeframe and claimed lack of redeployment options did not withstand scrutiny.

Matched passage: Orders and payments mentioned Compensation: $18,000.

Browse topics