ClickCease

Results for personal grievance

Showing 177-184 of 363 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: A failed dismissal claim does not end the analysis: the Authority can still find a different form of personal grievance where the evidence supports it.
OAS v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

Chef OAS told JIK Limited he needed time away from work after family violence affecting his children, including meetings with victim support and steps toward a protection order. The employer treated his messages as resignation or abandonment and omitted him from the next roster.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was an apprentice builder with Keene Construction when he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment. The director then texted that there would not be a company and told him not to bother coming to work, creating a dispute about whether those messages amounted to dismissal.

Matched passage: The Authority found there was no evidence that Mr Sun contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the personal grievance; on the contrary, he had actively sought clarification from Mr Smith about his employment status.
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: No contribution reduction The Authority was required to consider whether Mr Hunt contributed to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance.
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: ... holidays: further public-holiday entitlements ordered Contribution: 15 percent reduction to personal grievance remedies Personal grievance remedies after reduction: $9,019.44 lost remuneration and $15,300 compensation Arrears ordered: $3,210 wages, $256.80 holiday pay on those ...
Brent Colyer v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited [2026] NZERA 444 - flawed disciplinary process, written warning and unjustified disadvantage

Electrician Brent Colyer was investigated and given a written warning by New Zealand Aluminium Smelters after a gantry-crane incident involving another employee. He later resigned, alleging both unjustified disadvantage from the disciplinary process and constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Lita Beattie v Matthew Roberts [2026] NZERA 450 - employee status, unpaid wages and constructive dismissal

Lita Beattie worked as Head Chef/Kitchen Manager in a relationship the respondent treated inconsistently and left with significant wage arrears. The ERA had to determine employee status, unpaid entitlements and whether employer conduct forced her resignation.

Matched passage: Alleged personal debts do not cancel minimum employment obligations.
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: The personal grievance was raised in time FENZ argued that Ms Bradley's personal grievance was out of time.

Browse topics