ClickCease

Results for warnings

Showing 9-16 of 104 results
JAGJIT SINGH v L&B FOODS LIMITED and ANOR [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal upheld; $8,933 remedies (reduced) plus wage arrears.

Kitchen hand Jagjit Singh was dismissed immediately after the employer believed he had attended work intoxicated and later returned to the restaurant. There was no paper trail of prior warnings or a proper investigation before the phone-call and email dismissal.

Matched passage: There is no paper trail of prior meetings with feedback, warnings or investigation undertaken relating to the incident on 26 February 2024.
BROWN v TIMBER TOWN HARVESTING LIMITED [2025] NZERA 117 - real dismissal reasons were not fairly put to the employee

Timber Town Harvesting summarily dismissed Mr Brown after relying on an earlier workplace incident and disputed warnings. The case examined whether the reasons actually relied on were properly put to him and whether he had been given a meaningful opportunity to understand and correct the employer's concerns.

Matched passage: Later, In its dismissal letter, TTH also justifies Mr Brown's dismissal by referring to past warnings.
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: The handwritten notes recorded that the outcome to be delivered that day could include a warning, a performance improvement step, a first and final warning, or dismissal - and ultimately dismissal occurred that day.
Deborah Coley v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 530 - redundancy threat used to force variation of guaranteed hours

Deborah Coley's agreement guaranteed at least 32 hours each week, but Bupa sought to vary that guarantee by averaging hours across a six-week roster and presented redundancy as the alternative if she refused. A later disciplinary investigation and written warning added a second strand to the disadvantage claim.

Matched passage: The warning was unjustified Bupa issued Ms Coley a written warning on 4 December 2025.
Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies

Hurikawa was abruptly told he was 'finished' by Walton Mountain without a stated reason, warning or opportunity to respond. The ERA therefore had to assess a direct verbal termination against the minimum substantive and procedural requirements in s 103A.

Matched passage: On his evidence, he was told he was "finished" and was not given a reason, a warning, or any opportunity to respond.
Shubanghi Kaushal v Ambridge Rose Manor [2025] NZERA 818 - misconduct, medical/incapacity; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Healthcare assistant Shubanghi Kaushal was suspended and then summarily dismissed after an incident the employer characterised as serious misconduct. The ERA examined the incident in context, an existing final warning and whether dismissal was within the range open to a fair and reasonable employer.

Matched passage: Could a fair and reasonable employer rely on Ms Kaushal's final warning in concluding dismissal was justified?
ZHENG v BOYA TRADING LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 427 - dismissal by text was not abandonment

Boya Trading summarily dismissed Mr Zheng by text on 26 May 2023, alleging that he had refused to work and abandoned his employment. Mr Zheng said there had been no warning or consultation and raised dismissal and disadvantage grievances the following month.

Matched passage: The determination records that He explained his dismissal was without warning or consultation and BTL had falsely accused him of abandoning his employment.
TRAIL v VEOLIA WATER SERVICES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 353 - dismissal for workplace outbursts still unjustified

Veolia dismissed Mr Trail after a series of workplace outbursts, having previously issued a warning and then relied on later complaints. The ERA examined whether the proven conduct and disciplinary history could reasonably justify dismissal.

Matched passage: Ultimately, Mr Rozitis scheduled a meeting with Mr Trail for 25 August 2023, to discuss the request to withdraw the warning and to raise the complaints made by NSB.

Browse topics