ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 201-208 of 266 results
Wallace v Tang & Son Ltd [2026] NZERA 67 - husband-and-wife chefs dismissed after management conflict; both succeed; $95,448 ordered

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.

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.
HARRY SAMPSON v LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED [2026] NZERA 17 - Preliminary time limit ruling; grievance in time; mediation directed.

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.

Matched passage: The Authority held termination took effect on 18 February 2022 and that the 20 April 2022 correspondence raised an unjustified dismissal personal grievance within the 90-day notification period.
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: 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.
BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2025] NZERA 561 - redundancy business case and consultation both deficient

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.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 561 Registry: Wellington Parties: BELL v HUBERGROUP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Authority member: Davinnia Tan Hearing date: 25-26 June 2025 (2 days) Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
XU v ABHYUDAYA LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 502 - genuine redundancy but process unjustified

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.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 491 - genuine redundancy but consultation inadequate

Ms 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.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2025] NZERA 491 Registry: Auckland Parties: WEI v LANQUAN LIMITED and Ors Authority member: Rachel Larmer Hearing date: 30 June 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.
SUTTER v LIVING WATERS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 485 - predetermined redundancy; compensation and lost wages

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.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
HIRST v AL ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2025] NZERA 474 - bakery worker dismissed without fair process

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.

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

Browse topics