Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Results for unpaid wages
![Melissa Williams v S & M Haulage Limited (t/a Johnson Log Haulage) [2026] NZERA 74 - truck driver dismissed after one day; no valid 90-day trial clause; unjustified dismissal on process; remedies reduced for contribution](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
Melissa Williams was dismissed after a single day driving for S & M Haulage, which believed a 90-day trial applied and had genuine safety and resourcing concerns about her readiness for the role. The ERA examined whether there was a valid trial clause and whether she was given any chance to respond before termination.
Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.
Healthcare assistant Shubanghi Kaushal was suspended and then summarily dismissed after an incident the employer characterised as serious misconduct. The ERA examined the incident in context, an existing final warning and whether dismissal was within the range open to a fair and reasonable employer.
Fire and Emergency summarily dismissed Crawford Morris after complaints about interactions with a female volunteer firefighter, including comments about physical capability and a later dispute over protective clothing. The ERA examined whether insensitive conduct reached the serious-misconduct threshold.
RMD claimed she had been dismissed by LWQ and also relied on allegations said to amount to protected disclosures. The ERA examined the communications surrounding the end of employment and whether the alleged disclosures met the statutory requirements for protected-disclosure treatment.
Mr Canales accepted a part-time window-installer job with Thermashield but missed his intended first day because of a migraine. The case turned on whether an employment relationship had already been formed and whether later text messages brought it to an end.
Hai Zheng's employment dispute with JCD concerned whether he had resigned or whether employer breaches caused his departure, together with associated disadvantage and contractual claims. The ERA examined whether the employer's conduct made resignation a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
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.
