ClickCease

Results for final pay

Showing 161-168 of 184 results
CHUNG v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 69 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal unjustified

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.

Matched passage: The Authority found that the failure to pay wages in full and when due was unjustified and disadvantaged Ms Chung in the terms and conditions of her employment.
Leo Waters v S.T.L Linehaul Ltd [2021] NZERA 304 - Unjustified dismissal, redundancy process failures

Leo Waters was made redundant by STL Linehaul in a process he said lacked genuine consultation and a fair opportunity to influence the decision. The ERA examined both the employer's business rationale and whether the redundancy procedure met the good-faith and justification standards.

Matched passage: Orders and remedies The employer was ordered to pay (within 21 days) $17,000.
TYACK v BIG B CARTAGE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 436 - text was not resignation; employer later dismissed employee

Big B Cartage said Mr Tyack had resigned by text, while Tyack maintained he had not and later attempted to return after a period of medical incapacity. The case turned on who actually ended the employment relationship and whether the employer could rely on the alleged resignation.

Matched passage: Section 123(1)(b) of the Act also provides for the reimbursement of the whole or any part of wages or other money lost by Mr Tyack should The Authority found that he has established a personal grievance.
FVG v YJN [2026] NZERA 242 - suspension and dismissal unjustified; remedies reduced 30% for contribution

FVG, a structural engineer, challenged her suspension, the handling of bullying and performance concerns, and her eventual dismissal by YJN. The case required the ERA to separate several disadvantage allegations from the fairness of the final dismissal process.

Matched passage: Contribution Orders and payments mentioned Other payments: $7,000, $27,000 Lost wages / arrears: $71.
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: Thirty years of service and alternatives to dismissal Ballance's preliminary and final outcome material did not adequately address alternatives to dismissal.
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: At a glance Citation: [2026] NZEmpC 186 Judge: Judge Helen Doyle Judgment date: 14 August 2026 Underlying ERA determination: Resink v Employment Services Limited [2025] NZERA 104 Outcome: employer's challenge dismissed; constructive dismissal upheld Lost wages: $17,500.
KCY v XSH [2026] NZERA 516 - bullying complaint failures, forced transfer and dismissal over promotional gifts

Retail employee KCY complained of bullying linked to her Russian ethnicity, was placed on paid leave without proper consultation and directed to transfer stores immediately. She was later summarily dismissed over expired promotional gifts and disclosure of a back-office code.

Matched passage: Although KCY did not begin applying for jobs until about six months after dismissal, the Authority considered the financial and mental turmoil she faced rather than denying lost wages altogether.
VLN v Elizabeth Rose Dotcom, Kim Dotcom and Contractors Only Limited [2026] NZERA 508 - urgent removal to Employment Court

VLN brought claims about employment status and minimum employment standards arising from work at properties associated with Elizabeth and Kim Dotcom. With possible extradition affecting witness availability and enforcement, VLN sought urgent removal of the whole proceeding from the ERA to the Employment Court before the Authority investigation occurred.

Matched passage: If employee status is established, VLN seeks personal grievance remedies, unpaid wages and minimum statutory entitlements.

Browse topics