ClickCease

Results for serious misconduct

Showing 9-16 of 103 results
Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Matched passage: The conduct could amount to serious misconduct The Authority did not minimise the safety issue.
Kyle Spencer v Modern Transport Engineers Limited [2026] NZERA 60 - dismissal unjustified due to non-minor process defects; $12,000 compensation and employer damages offset

Modern Transport Engineers had evidence capable of supporting serious-misconduct concerns against Kyle Spencer, while also counterclaiming for unauthorised private work and purchases. However, it stood him down early, relied on undisclosed staff discussions and ran a process carrying signs of predetermination.

Matched passage: MTE advised (in a letter dated 22 February 2024) that it had made findings of serious misconduct and that termination was its preliminary view, seeking Mr Spencer's response.
Employment Services Limited v Resink [2026] NZEmpC 186 - constructive dismissal upheld

Employment Services pursued serious-misconduct allegations without adequately identifying them or providing requested information. Its unagreed visit to Frank Resink's home to recover a company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.

Matched passage: 08 gross Compensation: $15,000 Contribution: no reduction Costs: payable to Mr Resink Serious allegations without adequate particulars Mr Resink worked as a recruitment consultant for Employment Services Limited.
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Matched passage: pdf"; } David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 Big B Cartage called truck driver David Turner to a disciplinary meeting without first identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message on which it relied.
Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Matched passage: Misconduct allegations did not rescue the dismissal Sleaktek's correspondence mixed redundancy with allegations of serious misconduct.
The Board of Trustees v LGY [2026] NZEmpC 46 - interim reinstatement upheld on de novo challenge

A school Board challenged an ERA order temporarily reinstating LGY while the employee's substantive dismissal grievance remained unresolved. The employer relied on alleged serious misconduct, loss of trust and workplace relationship concerns to resist reinstatement.

Matched passage: Why interim reinstatement was maintained The Board relied on alleged serious misconduct involving school funds and on the effect a return might have on workplace relationships and third parties.
Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.

Matched passage: One-sided discipline problem: a fair employer could not decide serious misconduct by weighing only the employee's reaction while ignoring the manager/director conduct that formed part of the same incident and helped create the situation.
Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was disciplined and dismissed by Talley's after disputes surrounding a health and safety representative election and communications involving other employees. The case focused on whether Talley's properly investigated the competing accounts and relevant messages before deciding serious misconduct was established.

Matched passage: Good faith breach The Authority separately found that Talley's failure to carry out a fair disciplinary process breached the duty of good faith.

Browse topics