ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 153-160 of 270 results
Noel Jr Camacho v North Beach Limited [2025] NZERA 824 - 90-day trial clause held ineffective because probation and trial terms conflicted; employee may bring PG

North Beach relied on a 90-day trial clause to argue Noel Camacho could not bring an unjustified-dismissal grievance, but the same employment agreement also contained a probation clause that conflicted with the trial wording.

Matched passage: The Authority directed the trial period validity issue be decided as a preliminary matter, before the merits of the dismissal PG were investigated.
Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 - summary dismissal held unjustified; reinstatement declined; $20,000 compensation after contribution

Fire and Emergency summarily dismissed Crawford Morris after complaints about interactions with a female volunteer firefighter, including comments about physical capability and a later dispute over protective clothing. The ERA examined whether insensitive conduct reached the serious-misconduct threshold.

Matched passage: pdf"; } Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Crawford Morris v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2025] NZERA 612 (Christchurch registry, Member David G Beck).
XU v ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 502 - genuine redundancy but process unjustified

Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.

Matched passage: The Authority found that Ms Xu was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Abhyudaya during the process adopted during the redundancy situation.
WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491 - genuine redundancy but consultation inadequate

Ms Wei was made redundant from Lanquan after a downturn in architectural work. The ERA accepted the commercial need for redundancy but examined an abrupt process in which she was told the decision without meaningful prior consultation.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 491 Registry: Auckland Parties: WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors Authority member: Rachel Larmer Hearing date: 30 June 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
PETERSEN v EDGECUMBE SUPERMARKET LIMITED [2025] NZERA 473 - told to leave and surrender uniform amounted to dismissal

Edgecumbe Supermarket said Mrs Petersen was merely suspended after refusing an instruction and that her employment was going to end anyway because of overseas travel. Petersen said she was told to leave, surrender her uniform and was threatened with trespass, which objectively conveyed that she had been fired.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 473 Registry: Wellington Parties: PETERSEN v EDGECUMBE SUPERMARKET LIMITED Authority member: Shane Kinley Hearing date: 30 May 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
GILLARD v SOUTHSHORE MARINE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 454 - 90-day trial reliance fails; dismissal unjustified

Southshore Marine attempted to rely on a 90-day trial when dismissing Mr Gillard after concerns about his work. The timing of when employment actually commenced and the complete absence of a fair performance, conduct or capacity process were central issues.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
KU v EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor [2025] NZERA 455 - redundancy process materially unfair

KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.

Matched passage: ... and by audio-visual link Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. Story in plain English The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. In summary, In April 2024 Ms Ku's employment was terminated for ...
RISELEY v HUNTLY JOINERY 2000 LIMITED [2025] NZERA 342 - employer breaches caused constructive dismissal

Mr Riseley resigned from Huntly Joinery after a series of employer actions that he said destroyed the employment relationship. The ERA had to decide whether those breaches were sufficiently serious and causative to turn the resignation into a constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 342 Registry: Wellington Parties: RISELEY v HUNTLY JOINERY 2000 LIMITED Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin Hearing date: 16 and 17 January 2025 (2 days) Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Browse topics