ClickCease

Results for 90 day trial

Showing 185-192 of 255 results
KMW v ZIB Digital Limited [2025] NZERA 806 - redundancy consultation called a 'charade'; unjustified dismissal; $47,692.30 awarded

KMW was selected for redundancy by ZIB Digital after a process the employee said had been predetermined and gave consultation no real prospect of changing the outcome. The ERA examined the business rationale, the information provided and whether the consultation was genuine.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Haochen Guo v Su's Investment Limited [2025] NZERA 805 - suspension without process, bullying, and redundancy while on ACC leave; $25,000 compensation plus arrears and penalty

Haochen Guo was suspended, complained of bullying and was later made redundant while absent on ACC leave. The ERA examined the fairness of the suspension and workplace treatment as well as whether the purported redundancy was genuine and properly consulted on.

Matched passage: ... unjustified dismissal established (redundancy without consultation) Key orders (within 21 days): $25,000 compensation, $2,784 lost remuneration, $1,648 holiday pay; and $500 penalty to the Crown Costs: reserved What happened Mr Guo worked as a chef for SIL (Coffee Studio). ...
Glenice Cooper v Success Realty [2025] NZERA 782 - redundancy, performance; what the ERA decided and what was ordered

After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
GXQ v NMK [2025] NZERA 772 - name suppression and non-publication order refused; open justice prevailed

Before the substantive employment dispute in GXQ v NMK was determined, NMK sought permanent name suppression and a broad non-publication order. The application required the ERA to balance claimed personal consequences against the normal principle that Authority proceedings and determinations are open to the public.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Jingsheng Liu v Legend International Holdings Limited, Hongyu Holding Limited and Wang Yu [2025] NZERA 702 - unjustified dismissal by 'no work next week' text; 4 weeks lost wages + notice arrears; $15,000 compensation; penalties and s 142Y leave

Cabinet maker Jingsheng Liu was told by text that there would be no work the following week after the business moved and operations shifted between related companies. There had been no consultation, termination process or reasonable notice.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
Benjamin Thomas v Matthew Scott and Patricia Scott trading as Infinity Dairy [2025] NZERA 592 - indefinite paid suspension over prescribed medicinal cannabis; employer silence led to constructive dismissal; $33,545.75 awarded plus $4,571.55 costs/fee

Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
PARKER-JONES v GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED [2025] NZERA 571 - abandonment process unfair; dismissal unjustified

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
CHAND v ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2025] NZERA 574 - telephone dismissal unjustified

Mr Chand said Rohits Civil & Infrastructure dismissed him during a telephone conversation; the company disputed that account. The ERA had to decide whether the words and surrounding circumstances objectively brought the employment relationship to an end.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Browse topics