ClickCease

Results for performance improvement plan

Showing 9-16 of 73 results
Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

Brandt Tractor removed sales manager Nicholas Pilcher from the workplace on 'special leave', took his phone and laptop and then dismissed him five days later over four bullying and harassment complaints. He was not given the underlying complaints, even in redacted form, or a genuine chance to answer them.

Matched passage: The first complaint and the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) On 16 January 2024 Brandt was alerted to concerns from another employee (anonymised as MJP) about alleged harassment and intimidation.
PARKER-JONES v GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED [2025] NZERA 571 - abandonment process unfair; dismissal unjustified

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

Matched passage: The determination records that An unjustified disadvantage claim related to an alleged performance improvement plan was withdrawn by Ms Parker-Jones at the investigation meeting on 30 July 2025.
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: ... Aside from the written warning, which has been found to be unjustified, there was no performance improvement plan put in place for Mr Yu, as described in the policy handbook or written notice to him that SNL was concerned his refusal to work night shift may put him in ...
Lekeisha Ramsay v National Storage Ltd [2025] NZERA 269 - Probationary period dismissal held unjustified; $9,000 compensation + $14,040.40 lost wages; penalties dismissed

Lekeisha Ramsay was dismissed by National Storage just over three months into employment under a probationary arrangement. The ERA examined attendance and performance concerns, the adequacy of warnings and whether the employer had given her a fair opportunity to improve and respond before termination.

Matched passage: Across those topics, the recurring theme was not just whether concerns existed, but whether NS applied a proper probationary process with fair opportunity to improve and genuine consideration of the employee's explanations.
Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods [2026] NZERA 179 - misconduct, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.

Glenice Cooper v Success Realty [2025] NZERA 782 - redundancy, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.

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: On 13 January 2025, without any prior performance meetings or warnings, SVSL emailed Ms Pedersen saying CCTV and KPI reports showed she had not met key performance indicators (basket size/value and customer sign-ups).
KALKAT v EASY RECRUITMENT LIMITED T/A EASY RECRUIT [2025] NZERA 257 - dismissal grievance partly succeeds; $9,000 compensation

Mr Kalkat was placed in work through Easy Recruitment and later told the placement employer considered his performance inadequate. He alleged that his employment had been ended without a fair process and sought compensation and lost wages for unjustified dismissal.

Matched passage: ... in tone) should have been dealt with at the time and Mr Kalkat had a reasonable explanation for his leaving early on his last day of work in 2023 yet being paid for the remainder of the day (an hour at the most). The fact that Mr Kalkat was engaged for temporary ...

Browse topics