Search Employment Law

Mr Hill challenged the ending of his employment with Tamaki Labour Hire and associated treatment during the employment relationship. The case required the ERA to separate the parts of his grievance that were established from claims for which the evidence did not justify relief.

Ms Chung was dismissed by email late on Boxing Day after about 100 days of work, with the employer purporting to rely on a 90-day trial period. General performance criticisms were raised later but had not formed a fair dismissal process at the time.

Ms Dung Pham disputed the way her employment at a nail salon ended and sought remedies for dismissal. The Authority had to resolve conflicting accounts of whether and when the employer brought the employment relationship to an end.

Mr Wei's claims followed a workplace altercation and the employer's response to it, including the eventual end of his employment and disputed wage-related entitlements. CCTV footage and conflicting accounts of the incident were central to the ERA investigation.

Auckland Steam 'N' Dry raised performance concerns with Bridget Addy by text and threatened that she would not make it through a supposed three-month trial, although her agreement contained no trial clause. She resigned in response.

Leo Waters was made redundant by STL Linehaul in a process he said lacked genuine consultation and a fair opportunity to influence the decision. The ERA examined both the employer's business rationale and whether the redundancy procedure met the good-faith and justification standards.

Neil Armstrong worked for Surplus Brokers in an arrangement the employer characterised as casual. The dispute concerned whether he had actually been dismissed, whether the casual label affected his rights, and the employer's failures to provide compliant employment documentation.

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.