ClickCease

Results for employee contribution

Showing 9-16 of 196 results
Brad Capper v CJS Construction [2023] NZERA 314 - unjustified dismissal; 50% contribution; no lost wages

Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.

Matched passage: The case is also useful on contribution, mitigation of lost wages, notice pay and the limits of the 90-day trial issue.
Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 - what changed and when it applies

A consolidated guide to the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026: commencement dates, changes to personal-grievance remedies and contribution, and the transitional question of which law applies to a particular dispute.

Matched passage: If you are acting for an employer, you will be framing the process issues as either (a) not unfair in outcome, or (b) caused by employee obstruction.
James Honotapu v Atlas Fibrous Plaster Company Limited [2026] NZERA 587 - absenteeism dismissal followed an unfair process

Atlas had legitimate concerns about James Honotapu's persistent absenteeism, but did not warn him that a meeting could end in dismissal. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $8,574 after reducing lost wages and compensation by 50 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: ... 16 July 2024 Determination: 24 August 2026 Outcome: unjustified dismissal Lost wages before contribution: $5,148 gross Compensation before contribution: $12,000 Contribution: 50% Total ordered: $8,574 Costs: reserved Persistent absenteeism affected the business Mr Honotapu had ...
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: ... $5,000 (for unjustified disadvantage) and $14,000 (for unjustified dismissal) (before any contribution deductions) Contribution deductions: 30% on the disadvantage compensation and 20% on the dismissal compensation (see determination for the final figures) Interest: Interest ...
Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

Lyon Kawhaaru was 'instant dismissed' by email from The Deck Tahuna after a customer incident at the Nelson café. The ERA examined what actually occurred, whether the employer fairly investigated it and how Mr Kawhaaru's own conduct should affect remedies.

Matched passage: A 25% contribution reduction was applied to all monetary remedies.
Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

Daniel Bly was dismissed by FutureCo after Instagram posts and internal Slack messages became the subject of disciplinary allegations. The case tested both the seriousness of the conduct and whether the employer's investigation and dismissal response were proportionate.

Matched passage: Contribution can still bite hard: even where the employer is wrong, employee misconduct can substantially reduce remedies.
Yusong Du v Sly House Limited [2025] NZERA 765 - WeChat dismissal and 50% contribution reduction

Sly House sent migrant construction worker Yusong Du a WeChat message saying he was unsuitable because he was too slow and lacked strength, then argued he had abandoned the job. The ERA also considered evidence that he had overstated his prior work experience.

Matched passage: Remedies and contribution Mr Du was awarded $14,435.
MON v ALLIED AUTO PARTS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 590 - dismissal by text unjustified; no contribution

Allied Auto Parts dismissed Mr Mon by text message and required him to work out two weeks' notice. The employer later relied on concerns about working from home and other matters, but no proper disciplinary or dismissal process had been carried out.

Matched passage: The parties are MON (employee) and ALLIED AUTO PARTS LIMITED (employer).

Browse topics