ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 169-176 of 321 results
LAZARO v WAIMEA CONTRACT CARRIERS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 472 - no dismissal at December meeting; later termination and notice addressed

Mr Lazaro said Waimea Contract Carriers dismissed him at a 4 December meeting; the employer said he was merely suspended on full pay while training and other options were considered, and that employment ended later after he refused to return.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
KU v EMPLOYMENT FOCUS LIMITED TRADING AS PBRS and Anor [2025] NZERA 455 - redundancy process materially unfair

KU was made redundant by Employment Focus trading as PBRS after a restructure process in which meeting times, consultation steps, alternatives and redeployment were disputed. The ERA examined whether the business had genuinely consulted before moving from proposal to termination.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
CHAUHAN and Anor v SD & SD INVESTMENTS LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 309 - dismissal and wage claims upheld on roster evidence

The Chauhans worked in a business operated by SD & SD Investments, with disputes about hours worked, who knew about that work, and how Mr Chauhan's relationship with the business ended. The ERA preferred documentary roster and time-record evidence on key factual issues.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
STILLMAN v BROTHER COFFEE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 239 - genuine redundancy but consultation unfair

Brother Coffee closed its cafe and made Ms Stillman redundant. The ERA accepted there were genuine commercial and personal reasons to close but examined when the decision was actually made and whether consultation occurred before the outcome became fixed.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
Resink v Employment Services Limited [2025] NZERA 104 - constructive dismissal after continuing good-faith breaches

Employment Services pursued a disciplinary investigation without clearly identifying all allegations or providing requested information. An intimidating visit to recover Frank Resink's company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.

Matched passage: Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form Read the full ERA determination (embedded) If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
WYETH v HANSEN PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 92 - unjustified dismissal

This costs determination followed Christopher Wyeth's partly successful employment case against Hansen Products. The dispute was whether costs should be reduced because he had rejected a $10,000 Calderbank settlement offer before the substantive determination.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
Thuy v Huynh [2025] NZERA 74 - 90-day trial failed; dismissal for seeking employment advice unjustified

A nail technician was dismissed during a purported 90-day trial after seeking advice about her employment rights. The employer had not complied with the notice requirement in its own trial clause.

Matched passage: An employer cannot treat an employee's attempt to obtain employment-law advice as misconduct justifying dismissal.
WEI v LIU and Anor [2025] NZERA 80 - dismissal and wage claims upheld; $15,000 compensation

Mr Wei's claims followed a workplace altercation and the employer's response to it, including the eventual end of his employment and disputed wage-related entitlements. CCTV footage and conflicting accounts of the incident were central to the ERA investigation.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

Browse topics