ClickCease

Results for serious misconduct

Showing 17-24 of 103 results
Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

Corrections dismissed prison officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi for alleged unjustified use of force after an incident that also resulted in a criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted on self-defence grounds. The ERA examined the employer's independent investigation, the evidence available and the fairness of the serious-misconduct conclusion.

Matched passage: It did not explain whether each separate issue was capable of amounting to serious misconduct, nor why dismissal was the appropriate outcome for those issues alone.
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: Story in plain English Mr Sinclair-Walker was dismissed for alleged serious misconduct after performance concerns were raised.
LYONS v ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL [2025] NZERA 467 - summary dismissal disproportionate; 100% contribution to compensation

Rotorua Lakes Council summarily dismissed recreation planner Richard Lyons after repeated absences and failures to communicate. Its own code classified the conduct as misconduct subject to a progressive warning process, rather than serious misconduct warranting immediate dismissal.

Matched passage: Failing to report by telephone to your supervisor [41] Despite the alleged breaches being listed as misconduct under the code of conduct, the employer decided to summarily dismiss Mr Lyons for serious misconduct based on a breach of trust and confidence.
BLIGNAUT v WASTE MANAGEMENT NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 560 - The personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage was upheld.

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.

Matched passage: The determination records that WMNZ starts a disciplinary process [79] On 14 December 2023 Mr Singh sent an email to Mr Blignaut attaching a letter requesting a meeting on 15 December 2023, for when Mr Blignaut was expected to return to work.
OCO v ZUA [2025] NZERA 790 - Constructive dismissal after unfair suspension and defective disciplinary process

OCO resigned after being suspended and put through a disciplinary process by ZUA. The case centred on whether the suspension and investigation were fair and whether the employer's cumulative conduct was serious enough to make the resignation a constructive dismissal.

Matched passage: ZUA then started a disciplinary process against OCO while refusing to identify the complainants or properly set out the allegations.
Kevin Whelan v The Board of Trustees of Lindisfarne College [2026] NZERA 558 - justified dismissal but notice breach caused disadvantage

Lindisfarne College dismissed long-serving IT manager Kevin Whelan after a serious comment to students while showing CCTV footage of an accident. Although the misconduct could justify dismissal, the College paid four weeks in lieu rather than complying with the collective agreement's one-month notice mechanism or properly invoking instant dismissal.

Matched passage: The collective agreement still had to be followed The collective agreement provided that termination would be on one month's notice unless otherwise agreed, except where serious misconduct warranted instant dismissal.
Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

Daniel Bly was dismissed by FutureCo after Instagram posts and internal Slack messages became the subject of disciplinary allegations. The case tested both the seriousness of the conduct and whether the employer's investigation and dismissal response were proportionate.

Matched passage: Social media discipline needs evidence of harm: "reputation damage" is not assumed.

Browse topics