ClickCease

Results for unfair dismissal

Showing 225-232 of 321 results
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.
PENNY v FRELLO LIMITED [2025] NZERA 317 - redundancy consultation and redeployment failures

Henry Penny was selected for redundancy from Frello's software-development team after a restructure intended to reduce headcount. He argued resignations had already reduced staff numbers, the selection outcome was predetermined, and consultation and redeployment were not genuine.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
WILLIAMS v LONGEVITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and Anor [2025] NZERA 215 - redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified

Mr Williams was told by email on 17 March 2024 that he had been made redundant immediately. He had not previously been told his job was in jeopardy, no supporting information accompanied the decision, and there had been no genuine consultation before the outcome was reached.

Matched passage: ... Determination date: 16 April 2025 Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). Story in plain English The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues (partly successful). In summary, Mr ...
CHENG v THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY [2025] NZERA 167 - personal grievance partly successful; compensation and lost wages

Ms Cheng's case against Lincoln University involved several employment grievances and required the ERA to distinguish the claims that were made out from those that were not. The resulting orders included both compensation and a wage-related remedy rather than an across-the-board finding for either party.

Matched passage: Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
Cameron Rix v Rotorua Quarry Limited [2025] NZERA 152 - The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed (abandonment was not made out) and awarded remedies.

Rotorua Quarry treated Cameron Rix's absence as abandonment and ended his employment. The ERA had to decide whether his conduct showed an intention to permanently walk away from the job and whether the employer was entitled to terminate on that basis.

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.

Browse topics