ClickCease

Results for dismissal process

Showing 177-184 of 270 results
Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Matched passage: RidgeAir later maintained that Mr McCullum's departure amounted to voluntary severance rather than dismissal.
Natalie Butler-Smith v David and Dale Cavey t/a DG and DV Cavey Partnership [2026] NZERA 324 - farm assistant dismissed before returning from parental leave

Part-time farm assistant Natalie Butler-Smith was dismissed in February 2024 around the end of parental leave, with the employers raising health-and-safety concerns and disputing aspects of work performed during leave. The respondents did not appear at the investigation meeting.

Matched passage: There was no consultation with her, no real process, no opportunity to test the concern, and no exploration of alternatives.
Kevin Whelan v The Board of Trustees of Lindisfarne College [2026] NZERA 558 - justified dismissal but notice breach caused disadvantage

Lindisfarne College dismissed long-serving IT manager Kevin Whelan after a serious comment to students while showing CCTV footage of an accident. Although the misconduct could justify dismissal, the College paid four weeks in lieu rather than complying with the collective agreement's one-month notice mechanism or properly invoking instant dismissal.

Matched passage: Why this case matters Whelan v Lindisfarne College shows that a personal grievance can succeed in one respect even where dismissal itself is justified.
The Board of Trustees v LGY [2026] NZEmpC 46 - interim reinstatement upheld on de novo challenge

A school Board challenged an ERA order temporarily reinstating LGY while the employee's substantive dismissal grievance remained unresolved. The employer relied on alleged serious misconduct, loss of trust and workplace relationship concerns to resist reinstatement.

Matched passage: ... Non-publication: interim non-publication orders continued Important: this is not a final dismissal judgment The Court was dealing with interim reinstatement, not the final merits of LGY's personal grievance. The employer accepted there was an arguable unjustified-dismissal ...
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.
Serious misconduct in NZ employment law - how to classify it (and why it matters more after 21 Feb 2026)

A practical framework for distinguishing ordinary misconduct from serious misconduct after the 2026 remedy amendments, with emphasis on the contractual standard, the facts proved and proportionality.

Matched passage: It also matters because policies often prescribe different process steps depending on whether it is alleged misconduct or serious misconduct.
Employment Services Limited v Resink [2026] NZEmpC 186 - constructive dismissal upheld

Employment Services pursued serious-misconduct allegations without adequately identifying them or providing requested information. Its unagreed visit to Frank Resink's home to recover a company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.

Matched passage: The constructive-dismissal finding and ERA remedies were confirmed without any contribution reduction.
Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co agreed Valerie Leech's core job terms and told her when to start before presenting a written employment agreement containing a 90-day trial clause. It later relied on that clause to dismiss her.

Matched passage: Once the trial clause was unavailable, EICL had to justify the dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Browse topics