ClickCease

Results for performance dismissal

Showing 17-24 of 117 results
Sirikanya Pankhum v Super Vape Store Limited [2026] NZERA 149 - WhatsApp dismissal during probation, no process; $12,500 compensation, $7,873.92 lost wages, $311.28 holiday pay

Sirikanya Pankhum was working under a six-month probation clause when Super Vape Store ended her employment by WhatsApp. A probationary arrangement did not remove the requirement for the employer to identify concerns, hear her response and use a fair dismissal process.

Matched passage: The message said CCTV and 'performance reports' showed she had not met KPIs like basket size/value and customer sign-up rate, and that her probation had not been met.
Sinclair-Walker v Alert Monitoring Otago (1994) Limited [2026] NZERA 29 - unjustified dismissal; $25,000 compensation and $16,900 lost remuneration

Alert Monitoring dismissed Carl Sinclair-Walker for alleged serious misconduct after raising three concerns about his work performance. The ERA examined whether those concerns and the process used could justify immediate termination.

Matched passage: At a glance Citation: [2026] NZERA 29 Registry: Christchurch Parties: SINCLAIR-WALKER v ALERT MONITORING OTAGO (1994) LIMITED Outcome: Unjustified dismissal upheld.
RAINA v HALL'S REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT LIMITED [2025] NZERA 469 - disciplinary process and dismissal procedurally unfair

Mr Raina faced disciplinary action by Hall's Refrigerated Transport, including a meeting invitation that did not tell him he could bring a support person and a generic warning that dismissal was possible. The case concerned both disadvantage during the process and the justification for the eventual termination.

Matched passage: The 30 August 2024 letter contained a generic warning about all options being open, up to and including dismissal, but Mr Raina stated that based on his previous interactions with the employer he had reasonable grounds to believe that dismissal was not a potential outcome.
RISELEY v HUNTLY JOINERY 2000 LIMITED [2025] NZERA 342 - employer breaches caused constructive dismissal

Mr Riseley resigned from Huntly Joinery after a series of employer actions that he said destroyed the employment relationship. The ERA had to decide whether those breaches were sufficiently serious and causative to turn the resignation into a constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: However, the list of specific jobs provided in the email after the phone call and the plan of supervised visits puts Mr Curran's concerns about Mr Riseley into a category that is something more than general upskilling and more akin to performance concerns.
Lekeisha Ramsay v National Storage Ltd [2025] NZERA 269 - Probationary period dismissal held unjustified; $9,000 compensation + $14,040.40 lost wages; penalties dismissed

Lekeisha Ramsay was dismissed by National Storage just over three months into employment under a probationary arrangement. The ERA examined attendance and performance concerns, the adequacy of warnings and whether the employer had given her a fair opportunity to improve and respond before termination.

Matched passage: The handwritten notes recorded that the outcome to be delivered that day could include a warning, a performance improvement step, a first and final warning, or dismissal - and ultimately dismissal occurred that day.
Hao v South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited [2025] NZERA 245 - pressure to resign caused constructive dismissal

South Pole treated Xinhua Hao as having agreed to resign, despite his repeated denials, then withheld work and continued pressing the resignation dispute. The ERA found those actions caused an unjustified constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: Why this case matters Hao v South Pole is a practical example of a disputed resignation becoming constructive dismissal.
CUC v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 68 - trial-period defence fails; dismissal unjustified

Ms Cuc was dismissed with one week's notice under what the nail-salon employer said was a 90-day trial period. She said the real issue was that she was outspoken about her employment rights, while performance criticisms were advanced later in the ERA proceeding.

Matched passage: Ms Huynh has then proceeded to critique Ms Cuc's work performance as a defence against paying her wages at all, paying her contractual rate, and to justify her summary dismissal.
DUN TRAN v HUYNH [2025] NZERA 73 - dismissal and employment-entitlement claims partly successful

Dun Tran's employment dispute with Huynh involved the ending of the employment relationship together with claims about pay and workplace treatment. The ERA had to separate the dismissal issue from the employment-standard claims and determine which alleged breaches were actually established.

Matched passage: After that, Although Ms Huynh has raised allegations of poor performance by Ms Dung Tran, and said generally that she (quoted wording omitted), neither of these issues were raised with Ms Dung Tran at the time either, and so cannot be relied on to justify her dismissal.

Browse topics