ClickCease

Results for final pay

Showing 169-176 of 184 results
FEC v HES [2026] NZERA 475 - constructive dismissal failed but unjustified disadvantage found over home visits

FEC was a beginning school principal whose relationship with the board deteriorated after a parent-related incident. Among the challenged conduct were after-hours visits by the presiding member to FEC's home to deal with school employment matters, followed eventually by FEC's resignation.

Matched passage: Orders made Compensation: HES must pay FEC $10,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
Blue Hunt v Lance Wakelin [2026] NZERA 463 - farm assistant unjustifiably dismissed after cowshed dispute

Farm assistant Blue Hunt's employment ended after a cowshed dispute with Lance Wakelin. The case required the ERA to determine who the employer was, whether Mr Hunt had been dismissed and whether any fair process or substantive reason justified the termination.

Matched passage: Lost wages: Mr Wakelin must pay Mr Hunt $18,057.
Sukhmanpreet Singh v JIT Limited, Davinder Pal and Harmanpreet Kaur Sandhu [2026] NZERA 453 - forced leave request, unjustified suspension and dismissal

Sukhmanpreet Singh's dispute with JIT arose after he was pressed to submit an annual-leave request and a confrontation followed. JIT then cancelled his shifts on claimed mental-stress grounds and later dismissed him for serious misconduct, while the ERA examined the conduct of both sides.

Matched passage: Orders made Personal grievance remedies: JITL must pay Mr Singh $9,019.
Sidney Yu and Jing Tham v Queenstown Nursery Limited [2026] NZERA 446 - casual employment, fixed assignment and unjustified dismissal

Sidney Yu and Jing Tham were engaged by Queenstown Nursery for temporary plant work and were later selected to stop working, with the employer relying on weather and alleged comparative inefficiency. The case concerned whether the casual or short-assignment characterisation justified ending their work without a fair process.

Matched passage: Use written employment agreements: they reduce uncertainty about casual status, assignment length, public holidays, and holiday pay treatment.
Amanda Bradley v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2026] NZERA 441 - FireSuper eligibility and poor communication

Amanda Bradley challenged FENZ's handling of her eligibility for FireSuper and the way information about that benefit was communicated after she took a newly created regional training-management role. The case focused on whether misleading or inadequate communication caused an employment disadvantage.

Matched passage: FENZ was ordered to pay $5,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution.
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: Limited lost wages: four weeks only Mr Solomona claimed lost wages.
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: The employee must be told the real allegations, given the relevant material, and allowed a meaningful opportunity to address it before a final decision is reached.
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: Lost wages: none ordered because the claim was withdrawn before the determination.

Browse topics