ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 185-192 of 266 results
PINK v POWERNET LIMITED [2025] NZERA 374 - redundancy business case not genuine

PowerNet proposed to disestablish Ms Pink's occupational-health role and replace the service model, but the ERA scrutinised whether the proposal genuinely reflected her whole role, the asserted flexibility rationale and the lack of supporting costings.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
DQJ v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2025] NZERA 365 - Inland Revenue ended employment prematurely without exhausting alternatives

Inland Revenue ended DQJ's employment after a lengthy deterioration in workplace relationships and concerns that it said could no longer be resolved. The ERA examined whether IR had exhausted fair alternatives before treating the relationship as incapable of continuing.

Matched passage: Practical takeaways Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
LI v MASTER Z FOOD LIMITED [2025] NZERA 335 - WeChat evidence showed employer ended employment

Master Z Food said Ms Li resigned during an April 2023 meeting; Li said she was told the decision had already been made to dismiss her and she could merely work out the week. Contemporary WeChat messages were central to resolving who ended the employment.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
VAN HEERDEN v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 217 - redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified

Mr van Heerden was told at a 30 January 2024 meeting that his position had been disestablished and his employment was ending for redundancy. The decision had effectively been made before he was told his job was at risk, and the process mixed redundancy with irrelevant performance and conduct concerns.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
ADO v JOAN FERNIE CHARITABLE TRUST BOARD [2025] NZERA 3 - redundancy found to be a pretext for conduct concerns

ADO was selected for redundancy by the Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board after workplace conduct concerns and an argument had arisen. The ERA examined whether redundancy was genuinely driven by commercial considerations and whether redeployment, including a proposed trial in the Stock Manager role, was fairly considered.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
Nicholas Stalker v Elevate Builders Limited [2026] NZERA 659 - apprentice dismissed by text after repeated wage problems

Apprentice builder Nicholas Stalker experienced repeated late and missing wage payments before being dismissed by text for alleged performance and misconduct without prior warnings, investigation or an opportunity to respond. The ERA upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims and ordered compensation, 13 weeks' lost wages, substantial arrears, notice pay, holiday pay, a penalty and costs.

Matched passage: Employees in this position should preserve bank statements, payslips, timesheets, texts about hours and pay, the employment agreement, any termination message and evidence of their job search after dismissal.
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: It was accepted by SRL that in all the circumstances, this amounted to an unjustified dismissal.
Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2023] NZERA 568 - compliance order declined after late payment; further costs awarded

Bridget Addy had already obtained an unjustified-dismissal determination and costs against Auckland Steam 'N' Dry and Graeme Stephens. When the ordered sums were not paid on time, she returned to the ERA seeking a compliance order and related relief.

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.

Browse topics