ClickCease

Results for disciplinary

Showing 145-152 of 155 results
Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

Husband-and-wife chefs working at Buoy Café were dismissed after an escalating conflict with new management. The employer did not properly investigate the allegations or give either employee a genuine opportunity to respond before deciding to terminate them.

Matched passage: ... Mrs Wallace (sous chef) at Buoy Cafe Employer position: Mr Wallace dismissed for "repeated misconduct, dishonesty and refusal to comply with reasonable instructions"; Mrs Wallace dismissed for "dishonesty, misconduct and negligence" (including alleged "collusion" and not ...
Yifu Jiang v Smartrade Limited [2026] NZERA 56 - fixed-term clause held unlawful; unjustified dismissal; $15,600 lost wages and $12,000 compensation

Smartrade treated Yifu Jiang's employment as ending under a one-year fixed-term clause, but the agreement did not record genuine reasons satisfying s 66. Mr Jiang was also given no meaningful chance to comment before the employer ended the relationship.

Matched passage: If an employer says there were performance or misconduct issues, the Authority will look at whether those were raised and dealt with properly at the time.
Fuyu Zhuo v BNS Co Limited and BNS Group Limited [2026] NZERA 45 - unjustified summary dismissal over till cash allegations; employer fidelity claim fails; $15,000 compensation and $3,000 penalty

Fuyu Zhuo was summarily dismissed and trespassed from a hospitality business after allegations that he had taken cash from the till. The employer's case also included a fidelity claim, while Mr Zhuo challenged the lack of a fair investigation and sought wage and holiday entitlements.

Matched passage: The employer treated the conduct as serious misconduct.
Cameron Rix v Rotorua Quarry Limited [2025] NZERA 152 - The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed (abandonment was not made out) and awarded remedies.

Rotorua Quarry treated Cameron Rix's absence as abandonment and ended his employment. The ERA had to decide whether his conduct showed an intention to permanently walk away from the job and whether the employer was entitled to terminate on that basis.

Matched passage: Key events described This letter advised "If the allegations are to be proven it could amount to serious misconduct and possibly involvement with NZ Police.
YAQUB v NEILSONS LAWYERS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 139 - suspension disadvantage and constructive dismissal upheld

Neilsons Lawyers suspended Mr Yaqub during an investigation into alleged conduct. He later resigned, alleging that the continuing suspension and the way the investigation was handled had made continued employment untenable.

Matched passage: The Authority notes that The letter included advice to Mr Yaqub that he was suspended on pay, described a number of allegations concerning his conduct which could amount to serious misconduct and advised he was to attend a meeting with the directors on Friday 29 April.
BROWN v TIMBER TOWN HARVESTING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 117 - real dismissal reasons were not fairly put to the employee

Timber Town Harvesting summarily dismissed Mr Brown after relying on an earlier workplace incident and disputed warnings. The case examined whether the reasons actually relied on were properly put to him and whether he had been given a meaningful opportunity to understand and correct the employer's concerns.

Matched passage: ... weeks between the 25 August 2023 incident and his dismissal which was inconsistent with his misconduct being so serious TTH believed it justified his summary dismissal. The Authority notes that Although TTH says there were further incidents after the 25 August 2023 incident ...
Thuy v Huynh [2025] NZERA 74 - 90-day trial failed; dismissal for seeking employment advice unjustified

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.

Matched passage: An employer cannot treat an employee's attempt to obtain employment-law advice as misconduct justifying dismissal.
LIEN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 70 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal and underpayment grievance succeed

Ms Lien was dismissed from a nail salon after allegations about outside work and later criticism of her performance. The employer also relied on a 90-day trial defence and disputed wages, although the alleged performance concerns had not been properly raised during employment.

Matched passage: In summary, On 13 December 2023, Ms Huynh sent Ms Lien a letter alleging that she was working for another salon, and that this could amount to serious misconduct and a conflict of interest.

Browse topics