ClickCease

Results for employee contribution

Showing 9-16 of 166 results
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).
LYONS v ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL [2025] NZERA 467 - summary dismissal disproportionate; 100% contribution to compensation

Rotorua Lakes Council summarily dismissed recreation planner Richard Lyons after repeated absences and failures to communicate. Its own code classified the conduct as misconduct subject to a progressive warning process, rather than serious misconduct warranting immediate dismissal.

Matched passage: The parties are LYONS (employee) and ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL (employer).
STEWART v PULSE 2012 LIMITED t/a BROWNE ST [2025] NZERA 241 - dismissal unjustified; compensation reduced 17.5% for contribution

Pulse 2012 dismissed Mr Stewart after alleging he had prepared food for himself at the workplace while recorded as working, in a dispute that also involved allegations of theft. The ERA examined whether the evidence and disciplinary response could justify dismissal.

Matched passage: The parties are STEWART (employee) and PULSE 2012 LIMITED t/a BROWNE ST (employer).

Browse topics