ClickCease

Results for performance dismissal

Showing 9-16 of 117 results
FVG v YJN [2026] NZERA 242 - suspension and dismissal unjustified; remedies reduced 30% for contribution

FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.

Matched passage: Suspension grievance As FVG is found to be unjustifiably dismissed, the unjustified disadvantage grievance regarding the investigation and disciplinary process leading to dismissal have already been covered.
Constructive dismissal: when resignation becomes an unfair dismissal personal grievance

Constructive dismissal claims arise when an employee resigns because of sufficiently serious employer conduct. This guide explains the legal tests, evidence to preserve, and why resigning too quickly can weaken a good case.

Matched passage: A constructive dismissal is where an employer places an employee in a position where the employee has no choice but to resign.
Nicholas Stalker v Elevate Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 659 - apprentice dismissed by text after repeated wage problems

Apprentice builder Nicholas Stalker experienced repeated late and missing wage payments before being dismissed by text for alleged performance and misconduct without prior warnings, investigation or an opportunity to respond. The ERA upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims and ordered compensation, 13 weeks' lost wages, substantial arrears, notice pay, holiday pay, a penalty and costs.

Matched passage: After months of irregular and missing wage payments, he was dismissed by text message for alleged performance and misconduct issues that had not previously been put to him.
Gemma Pedersen v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 108 - dismissed by WhatsApp on KPI probation grounds without proper training; unjustified disadvantage and dismissal upheld; $15,917.48 ordered

Retail assistant Gemma Pedersen was dismissed by WhatsApp/email during a six-month probation period for allegedly missing sales KPIs. She said she had not received the promised practical training and had never been put through a genuine performance process before termination.

Matched passage: More importantly, SVSL did not raise performance concerns with Ms Pedersen, did not give her an opportunity to improve, and did not put her on notice that she might be dismissed if performance did not improve.
Andrea Lawson v Luxottica Retail New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 52 - investigation process disadvantages upheld; $15,000 compensation and $3,000 good faith penalty

Store manager Andrea Lawson challenged Luxottica's investigation and employment treatment after concerns were raised about store performance and policy compliance. Her case included disadvantage claims, dismissal allegations and an argument that the employer had failed to accommodate a medical condition.

Matched passage: Not every grievance about 'stress' becomes a dismissal case.
Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos described a hostile workplace in which visa-related pressure, pay issues and deteriorating treatment preceded the end of employment. The ERA considered dismissal alongside wage arrears and minimum employment-standard breaches.

Matched passage: Nresh tried to justify the dismissal by relying on alleged conduct and performance concerns, including negative comments and the use of an offensive term.
Stephen Nunn v Port Nicholson Fisheries LP [2026] NZERA 345 - unjustified dismissal after crayfish compliance investigations

Stephen Nunn was dismissed by Port Nicholson Fisheries after investigations into crayfish compliance issues. The case examined the quality of two disciplinary investigations, including reliance on an earlier warning, withheld information, unseen CCTV material, suspension and whether alternatives to dismissal were considered.

Matched passage: The second investigation relied on that warning, withheld key material, failed to show CCTV footage, did not consult before suspension, and did not consider alternatives to dismissal.

Browse topics