ClickCease

Results for personal grievance

Showing 209-216 of 282 results
PARKER-JONES v GPC ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED [2025] NZERA 571 - abandonment process unfair; dismissal unjustified

GPC treated Ms Parker-Jones as having abandoned her employment after a period involving significant medical issues and absence. The ERA examined whether the employer had enough information and followed a fair process before treating the relationship as ended.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
CHAND v ROHITS CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2025] NZERA 574 - telephone dismissal unjustified

Mr Chand said Rohits Civil & Infrastructure dismissed him during a telephone conversation; the company disputed that account. The ERA had to decide whether the words and surrounding circumstances objectively brought the employment relationship to an end.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
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: Ms Bell raised a personal grievance with Hubergroup on 26 February 2024 for an unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal.
JAYALATH v INFOSYS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 539 - dismissal over mandatory training modules unjustified

Infosys dismissed Mr Jayalath for failing to complete mandatory online business modules after a disciplinary process run partly by overseas management. He challenged both the substantive basis for treating the failure as dismissible conduct and the fairness of the procedure.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
LEVI-ADAMS v GREENE [2025] NZERA 531 - material withheld until after dismissal; dismissal unjustified

Ms Levi-Adams was dismissed by Greene after a process in which important material was not provided to her until after the termination decision. The ERA examined whether she had been given the information and opportunity to respond that a fair and reasonable employer was required to provide.

Matched passage: Decision markers (as described by the Authority) Ms Levi-Adams has established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
RMD v LWQ [2025] NZERA 535 - no dismissal; employment ended by mutual agreement

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.

Matched passage: If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.
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: Ms Wilkins raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal on 18 June 2024.
CANALES v THERMASHIELD LIMITED [2025] NZERA 522 - employment existed before first day; dismissal by text unjustified

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.

Matched passage: Later, On 11 August Mr Canales sent Thermashield a letter raising a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.

Browse topics