Search Employment Law

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos described a hostile workplace in which visa-related pressure, pay issues and deteriorating treatment preceded the end of employment. The ERA considered dismissal alongside wage arrears and minimum employment-standard breaches.

Cameron Keen's work and pay with Prestige Paving stopped after the employer ceased providing him with work rather than carrying out a formal dismissal process. The ERA examined whether that practical exclusion from employment amounted to a dismissal and whether any justification existed.

Sasha Lee performed management, HR and operational work across JNJ group businesses before duties were removed and her position was later declared redundant. She challenged both the unilateral reduction of responsibilities and the redundancy process, together with wage and holiday-pay issues.

Phil Jacklin argued that Planit Software Testing's short-term incentive clause guaranteed him a 25 percent bonus paid quarterly. The employer said the scheme was discretionary, while a separate issue concerned its failure to set KPIs and eligible amounts at the beginning of the financial year as promised.

Courtney Jansen was told by an external HR consultant that BDS Chartered Accountants would end her employment under a 90-day trial, but was offered the option of resigning instead. The case turned on whether choosing resignation in the face of an announced dismissal was truly voluntary.

Thomas Kenna was made redundant from Anztec after a restructuring that the ERA accepted had a genuine business basis. He challenged alleged predetermination and the employer's failure to proactively disclose information needed to understand and respond to the proposal.

Melissa Williams was dismissed after a single day driving for S & M Haulage, which believed a 90-day trial applied and had genuine safety and resourcing concerns about her readiness for the role. The ERA examined whether there was a valid trial clause and whether she was given any chance to respond before termination.

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.