ClickCease

Results for 90 day trial

Showing 169-176 of 295 results
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Shea's hours at STLand Contracting fell sharply before he was told by phone that there was no more work for him. He also alleged bullying and an unsafe workplace, while the employer had undertaken no redundancy or dismissal consultation.

Matched passage: His individual employment agreement was incomplete when provided to him, but it identified STLand as his employer, recorded indicative hours from 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday, and required 14 days' notice on termination.
Emma Baldwin v RJ Hospitality Solutions Limited [2026] NZERA 413 - unilateral roster changes after parental leave

Emma Baldwin returned to RJ Hospitality after parental leave to a dispute over rostered hours that had previously operated on a stable and regular basis. She challenged unilateral changes to that pattern and later claimed the breakdown of the relationship also amounted to dismissal.

Matched passage: 5 hours in her first week back, 12 hours in each of the following two weeks, and later experienced other weeks where she was not rostered for work on a Monday or Saturday.
Ilalio Solomona v Auckland Council [2026] NZERA 418 - conflict of interest dismissal unjustified

Ilalio Solomona was dismissed by Auckland Council after conflict-of-interest concerns about his outside personal-training business. Although his employment obligations could legitimately restrict outside activity, the disciplinary process did not put the contractual obligations actually relied on to him for response.

Matched passage: Discipline commenced long after the issues were known On 3 February 2025, Mr Solomona was handed a disciplinary invitation dated 17 January 2025 for a meeting two days later.
Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was disciplined and dismissed by Talley's after disputes surrounding a health and safety representative election and communications involving other employees. The case focused on whether Talley's properly investigated the competing accounts and relevant messages before deciding serious misconduct was established.

Matched passage: Mr Potter also established actual lost remuneration of $6,690.
Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall was made redundant from Consultex's Northland asbestos and mould work after a downturn that gave the employer a genuine reason to reduce headcount. The dispute centred on whether Consultex complied with its good-faith information and consultation obligations before choosing and implementing the redundancy.

Matched passage: Payment deadline: within 28 days of the determination.
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: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

Corrections dismissed prison officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi for alleged unjustified use of force after an incident that also resulted in a criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted on self-defence grounds. The ERA examined the employer's independent investigation, the evidence available and the fairness of the serious-misconduct conclusion.

Matched passage: Payment deadline: within 28 days of the determination.
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was employed by Huhtamaki Henderson on a fixed-term arrangement. Although the ERA accepted there was a valid basis for the fixed term itself, her employment was ended before the agreed expiry and the employer had to justify that early termination separately.

Matched passage: The email also said that no handover was required, directed Ms Hankins to return all company property to the Otahuhu office by midday on 8 August, said final pay through 15 August would be processed by 15 August, and thanked her for her contributions.

Browse topics