ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 193-200 of 321 results
Aiga Faamanu Roache v Landcorp Farming Limited t/a Pamu [2026] NZERA 55 - redundancy restructure held unjustified; $18,000 compensation and $8,900.15 lost wages

Aiga Faamanu Roache's Accounts Payable Team Leader role at Pamu was disestablished after automation reduced manual finance processing. The ERA examined whether Pamu had actually explained why her leadership role was surplus, allowed meaningful consultation and handled redeployment properly.

Matched passage: Ex-gratia payments are not a free pass: A goodwill redundancy payment does not automatically wipe out statutory remedies for unjustified dismissal.
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication

JHJ challenged a dismissal by IXX in a proceeding subject to temporary non-publication. The ERA considered whether the employer had substantive and procedural justification and what lost remuneration and distress compensation should follow if the grievance succeeded.

Matched passage: No fair process: The employer did not investigate, did not put concerns to the employee, and did not provide an opportunity to respond before dismissal.
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: 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.
Limei Wang v Serenity Float Clinic Limited [2025] NZERA 599 - redundancy without consultation despite insolvency

Limei Wang was made redundant by Serenity Float Clinic while the business was in serious financial difficulty. The issue was not whether insolvency pressures were real, but whether those pressures excused the employer from consulting with her before deciding that her employment would end.

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.
WILKINS v DD GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 536 - 90-day trial invalid because agreement was signed after work began

DD Group Holdings relied on a 90-day trial clause to dismiss Kelly Wilkins, but she had already begun paid training before the employment agreement containing the clause was signed. Her own conduct was also relevant to remedies.

Matched passage: Winning the dismissal claim does not guarantee full remedies: employee conduct can still lead to a substantial contribution reduction.
TYACK v BIG B CARTAGE LIMITED [2025] NZERA 436 - text was not resignation; employer later dismissed employee

Big B Cartage said Mr Tyack had resigned by text, while Tyack maintained he had not and later attempted to return after a period of medical incapacity. The case turned on who actually ended the employment relationship and whether the employer could rely on the alleged resignation.

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

Browse topics