ClickCease

Results for trial period dismissal

Showing 161-168 of 169 results
HILL v TAMAKI LABOUR HIRE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 100 - personal grievance partly successful; remedies limited to proven breaches

Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.

Matched passage: ... date: 21 February 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Story in plain English The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). In summary, Tamaki further ...
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: Variation or redundancy In August 2024, Bupa asked Ms Coley to sign a variation providing for an average of 32 hours over each six-week roster period.
Four Applicants v A Respondent [2026] NZERA 407 - union activity discrimination, duress, and work-from-home disadvantage

Four salaried union members alleged that a senior manager pressured them over strike action and delegate activity and that striking staff were temporarily denied discretionary work-from-home access. The non-publication case tested discrimination and duress protections connected with lawful union activity.

Matched passage: Discrimination: union activity was a material ingredient The Authority found that the applicants had each been involved in union activities within the statutory period.
Todd Dormer v Rhino-Rack New Zealand Limited [2026] NZERA 353 - ambiguous commission clause, Sales Commission Scheme, and unjustified disadvantage

Rhino-Rack recorded Todd Dormer's commission entitlement only as '10% paid quarterly'. He argued this meant 10 percent of sales or gross margin, while the company said a broader Sales Commission Scheme with individual, regional and company targets applied.

Matched passage: Important distinction: this was not a dismissal case.
Gregory Brian Clarke v Omni Health Limited [2026] NZERA 265 - redundancy substantively justified, but process unfair; $10,000 compensation for disadvantage

Gregory Clarke was made redundant from Omni Health during financial and organisational change. The ERA accepted the commercial rationale and found no suitable redeployment role, but examined whether a series of consultation and process defects caused a separate unjustified disadvantage even though the redundancy itself was genuine.

Matched passage: ... to information / good faith, redeployment, remedies and costs Outcome: redundancy and dismissal substantively justified; process not fair overall; unjustified disadvantage established; $10,000 compensation and $71.55 filing fee ordered; costs reserved Background: Omni ...
Ben Devine v Health New Zealand - Te Whatu Ora [2025] NZERA 206 - nurse's 'casual' status rejected; unpaid stand-down unjustified disadvantage; reinstatement ordered; $15,000 compensation plus lost wages

Ben Devine had historically held permanent nursing hours but Health New Zealand later relied on documents describing part of his work as casual and left him on an unpaid stand-down. The case concerned the real nature of the employment relationship and whether the employer could remove work and pay without a proper process.

Matched passage: Unjustified dismissal was not made out Mr Devine also advanced an unjustified dismissal claim (including constructive dismissal), based on the way the employer handled the unpaid suspension and the breakdown in communications.
Arnold Putt v George Weston Foods [2026] NZERA 179 - misconduct, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

Packaging operator Arnold Putt challenged disciplinary action by George Weston Foods after a confrontation with his production manager about task priorities. The ERA examined both the basis for a final written warning and whether shortcomings in the way the process was communicated caused a separate disadvantage.

Matched passage: Mr Putt said he had effectively been fired.

Browse topics