Tihei Kereopa-Rerekura's employment at Cruz Bar ended while Covid isolation requirements were affecting work. The employer relied on redundancy, but the ERA examined whether there was a genuine redundancy and whether any fair consultation process occurred before the employment ended.
Search Employment Law
Search New Zealand employment-law guides, ERA determinations, Employment Court decisions and topics.
Search tips
- Use quotes for exact phrases, eg "unfair dismissal".
- Use +word to require, -word to exclude, eg +redundancy -trial.
- Use OR to broaden, eg dismissal OR redundancy.
Results for workplace investigation
Brad Capper's short employment with CJS Construction ended in a dismissal that the employer did not attempt to justify under a 90-day trial clause. The case turned on dismissal fairness, his own contribution and whether he had proved efforts to mitigate lost wages.
Mere Broughton was dismissed after 106 days at The Whanau Ora Community Clinic. Her agreement contained a probation clause, and the dispute centred on the employer's attempt to use that clause as a shortcut to termination rather than carrying out a substantively justified and fair process.
Kaytlin Pinder was dismissed under a purported 90-day trial period. The key issue was whether the trial provision had been validly agreed before she became an employee, together with related failures to provide proper employment documentation.
Gary Cotton's case required the ERA to identify who his employer actually was after work performed through Gosling Solutions and dealings involving Darcee Gosling and Rob Ralston. The case also concerned a summary termination and claims for unpaid employment entitlements.
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.
After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.
