ClickCease

Results for performance improvement plan

Showing 9-16 of 48 results
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 ...
Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2022] NZERA 657 - constructive dismissal after a 'trial period' threat by text; $8,000 compensation, $3,600 reimbursement, $2,000 penalty

Auckland Steam 'N' Dry raised performance concerns with Bridget Addy by text and threatened that she would not make it through a supposed three-month trial, although her agreement contained no trial clause. She resigned in response.

Matched passage: Key findings Text message performance management was inappropriate: the Authority found performance concerns should have been raised face-to-face in good faith, in a supportive way, rather than by text.
Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were engaged by Queenstown Nursery for temporary plant work and were later selected to stop working, with the employer relying on weather and alleged comparative inefficiency. The case concerned whether the casual or short-assignment characterisation justified ending their work without a fair process.

Matched passage: Do not give a false or incomplete reason: weather and performance are different explanations.
Anna Murgatroyd v Xero (NZ) Limited [2026] NZERA 305 - redundancy procedurally unfair but no sham; compensation and lost wages ordered

Anna Murgatroyd was selected for redundancy from Xero's education team after a restructure. She alleged the process was predetermined, relying on an earlier Miro board, and also challenged the use of performance-related comments by a selection panel that included her manager.

Matched passage: Around June or July 2024, Ms Ruffino had also raised concerns with Xero's general manager of education and content delivery, Vikki Bean, about Ms Murgatroyd's performance during the roadshow.

Browse topics