Search Employment Law

After 21 years as a marketing manager, Glenice Cooper was dismissed for redundancy by Success Realty. By the investigation meeting the employer conceded the dismissal was unjustified, leaving the ERA to determine the proper level of lost remuneration, bonus and compensation.

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.

Cabinet maker Jingsheng Liu was told by text that there would be no work the following week after the business moved and operations shifted between related companies. There had been no consultation, termination process or reasonable notice.

Benjamin Thomas was placed on an open-ended paid suspension after issues arose about his prescribed medicinal-cannabis use. The employer then failed to progress a meaningful investigation or communicate a pathway back to work, and Mr Thomas eventually resigned alleging constructive dismissal.

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.

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.

Mr Blignaut challenged Waste Management's treatment of him during a workplace conflict, including alleged bullying, suspension and pressure to resign, before he was ultimately dismissed for alleged serious misconduct. The ERA considered both the pre-dismissal disadvantage claims and the termination itself.

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.