Husband-and-wife chefs working at Buoy Café were dismissed after an escalating conflict with new management. The employer did not properly investigate the allegations or give either employee a genuine opportunity to respond before deciding to terminate them.
Search Employment Law
Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Search tips
- Use quotes for exact phrases, eg "unfair dismissal".
- Use +word to require, -word to exclude, eg +redundancy -trial.
- Use OR to broaden, eg dismissal OR redundancy.
Results for unfair dismissal
Harry Sampson's proceeding against Lyttelton Port Company raised a preliminary 90-day time-limit issue before the merits of his personal grievance could be investigated. The employer argued the grievance was out of time; Mr Sampson relied on the communications by which he said it had been raised.
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.
Ms Bell challenged the disestablishment of her role at Hubergroup, arguing that the redundancy lacked a genuine business basis and that she was given an inadequate opportunity to consult on a proposal assembled in haste.
Architectural technician Ms Xu was told her role was redundant during a downturn in work. The employer had genuine commercial reasons to reduce staffing, but the decision was communicated without meaningful consultation beforehand.
WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491 - genuine redundancy but consultation inadequate
CaseMs Wei was made redundant from Lanquan after a downturn in architectural work. The ERA accepted the commercial need for redundancy but examined an abrupt process in which she was told the decision without meaningful prior consultation.
Living Waters told practice nurse Ms Sutter at a catch-up meeting that her role was being made redundant. The ERA examined whether the claimed business rationale was genuine and whether any real consultation occurred before the decision was effectively made.
Hailee-Anne Hirst said a bakery effectively dismissed her after calling her in on a day off and confronting her about allegedly missing market takings. The employer denied dismissing her but did not participate in the investigation meeting.
