ClickCease

Results for trial period dismissal

Showing 169-176 of 209 results
Prasath Balachandariyar v Civtec Limited [2026] NZERA 302 - redundancy selection unfairly used asthma and wrist injury; compensation and lost wages ordered

Prasath Balachandariyar was selected for redundancy after workplace health issues including asthma and a wrist injury became part of the employer's assessment. He argued the selection process unfairly used his medical circumstances and that the employer had not conducted a fair redundancy process.

Matched passage: ... workplace wrist injury; modified duties; Records of Conversation; sick leave; unjustified dismissal; unjustified disadvantage; remedies Outcome: the redundancy rationale and process were accepted, but the selection scoring was unfair and the dismissal was unjustified; Civtec ...
Mereana Kennedy v Remarkable People Limited [2026] NZERA 296 - account manager constructively dismissed after employer failed to properly respond to safety concerns about candidate; $20,000 compensation ordered

Mereana Kennedy resigned from Remarkable People after repeated unwanted communications from a candidate created safety concerns and the employer's protective arrangements failed to resolve the problem. She alleged the employer did not properly investigate or respond when the safety plan proved ineffective.

Matched passage: ... Key issues: 90 day personal grievance notification; casual employment label; constructive dismissal; safe workplace; good faith; contribution; remedies Outcome: personal grievance raised in time for the core safety and sanction issues; constructive dismissal established; ...
Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation

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.

Matched passage: Outcome: Redundancy was genuine and dismissal substantively justified, but significant good faith/consultation defects meant unjustified disadvantage was upheld.
Adam Gifford v Uma Broadcasting Limited [2026] NZERA 96 - redundancy unjustified for consultation failures and no redeployment discussion; $24,230 lost wages, $19,000 compensation, $1,500 penalty

After 18 years at Radio Waatea, senior journalist and editor Adam Gifford was selected for redundancy in a restructure merging English and Māori newsroom functions. The employer had genuine business reasons but did not fairly disclose key proposal information, clearly identify his role as at risk or consult over redeployment.

Matched passage: He also sought a penalty because UMA withheld his final pay for a period, using the withheld wages to pressure him to return company property.
Jack Wills v Complex Forme Limited [2026] NZERA 76 - health centre worker dismissed by silence after no contract and no pay; $25,526.80 ordered plus penalties

Jack Wills worked at Complex Forme without a written agreement and was not paid for 32 hours of work. After he sought clarity about pay and rostering, the employer stopped responding, removed his access and ceased providing work.

Matched passage: The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) treated that sustained silence as a dismissal and found the dismissal unjustified.
Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

Aiga Faamanu Roache's Accounts Payable Team Leader role at Pamu was disestablished after automation reduced manual finance processing. The ERA examined whether Pamu had actually explained why her leadership role was surplus, allowed meaningful consultation and handled redeployment properly.

Matched passage: Ex-gratia payments are not a free pass: A goodwill redundancy payment does not automatically wipe out statutory remedies for unjustified dismissal.
Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Matched passage: The result is an important distinction: the employee succeeded on employment status, dismissal, underpayment and good faith, but the Authority did not infer an unlawful premium merely from the existence of an overseas agency payment.
Recurring problems that come up in ERA cases

Recurring factual and procedural mistakes seen in ERA disputes, including poor records, unclear allegations, rushed dismissals, weak redundancy consultation and failures to prove loss or mitigation.

Matched passage: " This one turns up whenever there were meetings, warnings, investigations, or a dismissal process with defects.

Browse topics